Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords],

London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Tredegar Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE UNDER GOVERNMENT OR CROWN.

Return ordered, "giving the names of Members of the House of Commons who hold office under the Government or the Crown; the amount, if any, received by such Member as remuneration, apart from any Salary he may receive as Member of Parliament, and the date of each appointment."—[Mr. Charles White.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVANTS (MESOPOTAMIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many members of the Indian Civil Service have been sent
to Mesopotamia; what is the total amount of their salaries and allowances; and on what Votes will this money be found?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): According to the most recent returns, the number of members of the Indian Civil Service serving with the Civil Administration in Mesopotamia is six. The aggregate amount of their salaries and allowances is shown at Rs. 11,600 a month. The cost is met from the revenues of the occupied territory.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me on which Votes this money will be found?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can without notice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if he does not observe that that is the last part of my question?

Mr. MONTAGU: I am sorry I did not note, in preparing the reply, the last part of the question. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put it down again, I will see that he gets a reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask what he means when he says that the salaries will be recovered from the revenue of the occupied territories? Does that mean from royalties on the oil or taxes on the natives?

Mr. MONTAGU: From the revenue which is now received from the occupied territories.

ARMY COMMISSIONERS (BRITISH CANDIDATES).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the number of British candidates for commissions in the Indian Army, comparing, if possible, the figures for January, 1914, with January, 1920; and if he is satisfied with the position?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Noble Lord raises a question of the highest importance on which I am anxious to give him the fullest information. I am therefore preparing a statement, which I trust will be complete in a few days, and with his permission I will communicate with him again as soon as it is complete.

HUNTER COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if Pandit Jagat Narayan, who, in 1917 accused Sir Michael O'Dwyer of having imprisoned thousands of people without trial, and who subsequently undertook to make a public withdrawal of this false charge, has yet done so; if this person is identical with the Mr. Naryan who has signed the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Commission on the Punjab disturbances; and, if so, will he state who was responsible for placing on the Commission a person who had already, by his own confession, been guilty of false and seditious statements of a glaring character?

Mr. MONTAGU: Pandit Jagat Narayan Singh, who signed the Minority Report of Lord Hunter's Committee, made a speech in which he brought this charge in 1917. On being informed of its inaccuracy in 1918 he offered to withdraw it publicly, but in view of the lapse of time the provincial Governments concerned thought it unnecessary to ask him to do so. He was appointed to the Committee in 1919 by the Government of India, acting in close consultation with myself and with the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces. The habit of bringing unfounded charges against the Government is not confined to India, although we could all wish that the willingness to withdraw them when disproved were less exceptional. If the hon. and gallant Member really takes the view that he appears to take of the matter, he will, of course, discount the Pandit's recorded opinion accordingly. If he wishes to know my views on that opinion, he will gather them from the Papers which have been presented.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think it would have been more advisable to put somebody on this Commission who had not got a debit balance standing against his name; and is he aware that perhaps not everybody right through the country has the same opinion with regard to whether or not it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to put such people on the Commission?

Mr. MONTAGU: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every effort was made to get Indian representatives put on this Commission who were impartial. The
fact that a very highly distinguished and esteemed member of the United Provinces Legislative Council made a mistake once, which he offered to withdraw, does not, in my opinion, show he was a partial inquirer.

Sir F. HALL: As that offer of withdrawal had been suggested, does not my right hon. Friend think it would have been advisable that the Government should have accepted it and not have put this gentleman on the Commission?

Mr. MONTAGU: As a matter of fact, although it would not have affected my judgment on the subject, neither the Government of India nor I knew of this case when he was appointed, but I am not going to censure the local Governments concerned when they advised this gentleman a year afterwards that it was not necessary to make a public withdrawal and that it was sufficient that he had offered to do so.

Commander BELLAIRS: Were the Government of the Punjab asked their opinion as to the qualifications of this gentleman to serve on the Commission?

Mr. MONTAGU: That I do not know. I do know that this question of the unfortunate speech of this distinguished gentleman was brought to the notice of the Government of India, after his appointment, by the Government of the Punjab, who at the time stated that they did not wish on that ground to object to his appointment.

AUXILIARY FORCE BILL.

Colonel YATE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that he has prohibited the Auxiliary Force Bill brought in by the Government of India on the grounds that as at present advised he is opposed to the institution of compulsory military service in peace time, and that the European Association of India has cabled to him stating that their association regards the position in India with anxiety, he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure an efficient force, of equal strength to the existing force under the Indian Defence Act, for the protection of Europeans and their wives and families and to remove the anxiety on the subject that now exists in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have been authorised to frame proposals for an Auxiliary Force on a voluntary basis.

Colonel YATE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that this force on a voluntary basis will be equal in strength to the existing force?

Mr. MONTAGU: I hope so. I am determined that we must have a satisfactory Indian defence force, and I am also determined that we should try to secure that force on a voluntary basis rather than on a conscription basis.

Colonel YATE: If the voluntary force does not come up to the present strength, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in the Auxiliary Force Bill?

Mr. MONTAGU: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend be prepared to wait and see what we can do on a voluntary basis?

AMRITSAR DISTURBANCES (GENERAL DYER).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to ensure that the defence which General Dyer has put before the Army Council shall be published and that copies shall be in the hands of Members before the Debate on his action is discussed?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): Sir, I cannot anticipate the course which will be followed when this case has been considered by the Army Council.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: Has any adequate assistance, legal or otherwise, been given to General Dyer in preparing his defence for the Army Council?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot say whether the War Office has furnished him with assistance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might put down a question as to that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NAVAL RESERVES.

Viscount CURZON: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant a return showing how all classes of Naval Reserve were employed on the 31st of August, 1914, and the 11th of November, 1918?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY ti the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): As the answer is somewhat long and detailed, perhaps my Noble Friend will allow me to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to.

Naval reserves were employed as follows:

31st August, 1914.

Pensioners and Royal Fleet Reserve.—His Majesty's Ships, Naval Bases and Establishments. Fleet Auxiliaries and Royal Naval Division.

Royal Naval Reserve.—His Majesty's Ships (including Armed Merchant Cruisers), Naval Bases and Establishments; Trawler Section in Trawlers and Drifters on Minesweeping and Patrol Duties.

Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.—His Majesty's Ships, Naval Bases and Establishments, Royal Naval Division.

Sick Berth Reserve.—His Majesty's Ships, Naval Bases and Establishments (including Naval Hospitals).

11th November, 1918.

As above, and in addition:

Pensioners and Royal Fleet Reserve, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.—Defensively armed Merchant Ships, and in Merchant Ships being convoyed

Small numbers were also employed in many other places and in various theatres of war and operations.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "BROKE" AND "BOTHA" (SALE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's ships "Broke" and "Botha" are about to be sold or have been sold to a South American republic; whether the historic names and the records in the late War of these two ships were taken into account by their Lordships when the transactions were made; and why we are encouraging the strengthening of foreign navies in this way in view of Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The "Broke" and "Botha" have been sold to Chile, for whom they
were originally built, in accordance with the contract made with the Chilean Government at the time of their original purchase. Due account was taken by their Lordships of the historic names and records of these two ships, and will be borne in mind when names are allotted to future ships. The hon. and gallant Member will probably agree that the last part of his question does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not possible to offer to Chile two other flotilla leaders in place of these two, and were the South African Government consulted before the "Botha" was turned over to Chile in this way?

Mr. LONG: I said in my original answer that the Admiralty had no option. These ships were built for the Chilean Government, and when the British Admiralty detained them, they did so on the distinct contract that they should be returned to Chile at the end of the War.

BRITISH AND AMERICAN NAVIES.

Sir F. HALL: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what will be the number of capital ships possessed by the British and American Navies mounting 18-inch and 16-inch guns, respectively, in 1925, on the assumption that the present naval programme of the two countries is adhered to; and what will be the respective numbers of ships in the two Navies with a speed of 33¼ knots or more?

Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the question is as follows:


Capital ships mounting 18-inch guns.


United States
Nil
(according to


Great Britain
Nil
latest official reports).


Capital ships mounting 16-inch guns.


United States
16.



Great Britain
Nil.



The answer to the second part of the question is:


Capital Ships.


United States
…
6.


Great Britain
…
Nil.


Light Cruisers.


United States
…
10.


Great Britain
…
Nil.




Destroyers.


United States
266
(approximately).


Great Britain
196,
including those now in Special, Reduced, and Reserve Complements; or,



97,
not including those in Special, Reduced, and Reserve Complements.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a report of a ship having been built in the United States mounting 18-inch guns, and considering the number of ships being built by the United States with a speed of 33¼ knots, may I ask if he and his advisers will take particular notice of what is being done in the United States in order that the Fleet of this country may be up to that of any other country?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent telegraphic information from the United States that there are ships building with 18-inch guns?

Mr. LONG: Yes. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir F. Hall), I can assure him the Admiralty are following these very important developments with the greatest possible closeness, and he may rely upon it that we shall not fail to ask Parliament for the necessary powers if we think we shall otherwise fall behind our proper naval strength. As regards the question asked by my hon. Friend behind me (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), may I respectfully suggest that he should not assume that telegraphic reports are always based upon facts?

OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that certain promotions were promised under the Hyde-Parker scheme and that a number of officers have successfully passed the various examinations required, but that it has been considered necessary for these gentlemen to undergo certain further courses in gunnery, torpedo, signals, etc., before they can obtain the rank of lieutenant; if he can say why
some eight months has been allowed to pass since the last examination before such courses are even started; if he is aware that such delay must prejudicially affect these officers; and if he will look into the matter?

Sir J. CRAIG: The intention of the Admiralty to formulate a scheme by which commissioned officers from warrant rank might qualify for earlier promotion to lieutenant by selection was announced with other changes affecting the warrant officer classes in September, 1918. In January, 1919, the scheme of examinations was promulgated to the Fleet, and the announcement clearly stated that candidates would be required to pass examinations in gunnery, torpedo and signals. It is, therefore, not the fact that these subjects did not form part of the original scheme of examination but were added afterwards.
The consideration of the details of the courses and examinations in these three subjects has taken some time in view of the changes resulting from war experience and the necessity of arriving at a standard which, while being within the capabilities of prospective candidates, will be sufficiently high to justify special promotion. It is hoped to announce the details shortly. Promotion is by selection, and it is the intention to make the first selection when there is a reasonable number of qualified candidates available.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it not a fact that certain officers have already passed this examination up-to-date, and is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this delay of eight months must prejudicially affect these officers and their pensions?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is correct in saying that some officers have passed, but I do not think there will be any prejudicial effect.

WELFARE COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make some statement as to when the Report of the first Welfare Committee and the Admiralty decisions thereon will be promulgated to the Fleet; and, if not, whether he can give a definite assurance that this will be done before the second Welfare Committee is called upon to meet?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is expected that Admiralty decisions on some points in the Welfare Committee's Report will be given in the near future. No definite assurance can be given that decisions will have been promulgated on all points in the Report before the Welfare Committee meets, and I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to the reply on this subject given on the 7th instant.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware it was stated that the Admiralty decisions would be available before the second Welfare Committee met?

Sir J. CRAIG: It is hoped that they will, but no promise can be given in the matter. It is a very complicated matter.

ROSYTH DOCKYARD CHARGEMEN (PETITION).

Mr. WALLACE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the petition of the Rosyth Dockyard Chargemen's Association presented in December last year?

Sir J. CRAIG: The petition embodied proposals of a somewhat far-reaching character affecting the status of the subordinate supervising class in question. This important matter is receiving careful consideration, and it is hoped that it will be possible to give a decision within a few weeks.

ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS' COMMITTEE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the decisions arrived at by the Accountant Officers' Committee will be promulgated?

Sir J. CRAIG: I am unable to name a definite date, as several recommendations will require further consideration. It is hoped to promulgate certain decisions arrived at in the course of a few weeks.

REFITTING (DEVONPORT DOCKYARD).

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any offer was made by a shipping company during the past month to refit one of their steamers at Devonport; and, if it was made, why had it to be declined?

Sir J. CRAIG: Nothing is known of such an offer having been made.

Sir A. S. BENN: Is every effort being made to obtain and to carry out commercial work at Devonport Dockyard?

Sir J. CRAIG: Yes, Sir; everything possible is being done in that direction.

DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.

Sir A. S. BENN: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of men discharged from the dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth during the past six months; and what was the percentage of reductions at Devonport and at Portsmouth?

Sir J. CRAIG: The numbers are:


Devonport
…
…
…
1,007


Portsmouth
…
…
…
1,298


The corresponding percentages of the discharges for which the cause was "on reduction" are:


Devonport
…
…
…
64.5


Portsmouth
…
…
…
66.3

Mr. SHORT: Have the recommendations of the Colwyn Report been put into operation in their entirety?

Sir J. CRAIG: I would require notice as to their entirety.

INDUSTRIAL COURT AWARDS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 18.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that the recent awards 180 and 181, issued on the 10th March last, being decisions arrived at by the Industrial Court between certain trades unions and employers of labour employing workmen in the various classes of work to which the awards apply, are not to be calculated in assessing superannuation allowances as provided under the Superannuation Acts, he will state the reasons for not making these awards part of the substantive rates of pay on which the superannuation allowances are calculated?

Sir J. CRAIG: The advance in wages to which my hon. Friend refers has been applied to the workmen in His Majesty's Dockyard in no less advantageous a manner than in the case of workmen in private employment, where, broadly speaking, the question of the calculation of superannuation allowances does not arise. Having regard to the grounds on which the advance has been given, no
adequate reason is seen for making the advance a part of the substantive rate of wages for the calculation of superannuation allowances of the workmen in Admiralty service.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH NAVAL MISSION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if a British Naval Mission is still accredited to General Wrangel; if so, what is its strength and duties; and what steps are being taken to evacuate the refugees in the Crimea?

Mr. LONG: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday last, the British Mission with General Wrangel is being withdrawn. The Naval Mission consisted of 6 officers and 19 ratings. They acted in an advisory capacity in the distribution of relief, etc., during the recent evacuation operations of refugees. No steps are being taken to evacuate refugees in the Crimea; all refugees who came under Sir Halford Mackinder's guarantee have been evacuated.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When will the Naval Mission be actually withdrawn?

Mr. LONG: Orders have been given already for their withdrawal.

RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Mr. WALLACE: 19.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the provisions of the Increase of Rent (Restrictions) Bill will apply to the houses at Rosyth occupied by the employés at the naval base there?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have been asked to reply to this question. So far as the houses in question fall within the rental limit prescribed in the Bill, I see no reason, as advised, to doubt that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, as at present framed, will apply to these houses as it does to houses elsewhere.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction exist-
ing at present with the rates at Rosyth, and will a further inquiry be granted before any increase is made under the Rent Restrictions Bill? I understand this came under the Admiralty.

Mr. MUNRO: No, Sir, I do not think any further inquiry is required. If my hon. Friend will see me on the subject, I will consider it further, but I have answered the question as to whether these houses fall within the Act.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hitherto all these houses have come under the Admiralty?

Mr. MUNRO: I am not aware of that. It is hardly a question for the Admiralty, or perhaps for me, whether these houses fall within the Act or not, but my hon. Friend, having put down the question, I have taken advice on the subject, and I am advised that these houses do fall within the Act.

Mr. CLOUGH: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the terms of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, he will define exactly what is understood by a shopkeeper using a shop as part of his dwelling-house; whether those cases in which one member of the family resides on the premises would be sufficient to bring it under the operation of the Act; and whether he can now make any further statement as to the terms of reference on which he proposes to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole matter of business premises?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): If the hon. Members will refer to the Bill he will see that it is specifically provided that its application to any house or part of a house shall not be excluded by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop. I hope that the notice of the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee will appear on the Paper within the next few days.

NON-FERROUS MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. JESSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men employed in mining tin, lead, zinc, barytes, and certain other minerals are unable to procure the rates of wages now being awarded by industrial courts and other arbitrating bodies, and that the
reason alleged is that prices are determined by cheap Chinese labour, cheap and underpaid Spanish and Mexican labour, the labour of negroes in Nigeria, and of Red Indians in Bolivia; whether the result is that every advance in other trades simply renders the position of these miners increasingly worse so that a system of sweating and degradation is arising in consequence; whether the proprietors of the tin, lead, and zinc mines here are also very largely the owners of the mines employing black, yellow, and red labour in the competing countries; and whether, seeing that rich coal mines are compelled to contribute from their earnings towards the cost of working inferior coal mines which but for such contribution could neither pay the standard wages nor continue working, he will prepare a scheme whereby rich tin, lead, etc., mines employing coloured labour in the British Empire shall be compelled to contribute from their excess profits to a wages pool designed to raise lead, zinc, and tin miners' wages in this country to the level of earnings of other miners?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that a Committee which has investigated the whole economic position of the non-ferrous mining industry in this country has recently reported to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade making certain recommendations. These recommendations are under consideration, and in the meantime arbitration proceedings in respect of the wages of the miners concerned have been held before the Industrial Court, to which the two sides of the Interim Reconstruction Committee for the Non-ferrous Mining Industry were parties. The award of the Court is expected shortly.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations of the Whitley Council for the Civil Service are likely to prejudice the employment of thousands of ex-service men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think my hon. Friend's question applies to this question.

Mr. JESSON: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an export duty on tin ore or smelted tin is imposed either by the Federated or non-Federated Malay States or the Government of the Straits Settlements; what is the amount
and character of this duty, if any; is it discriminated in any manner in favour of the British Empire and, if so, how; is there an export duty on tin from Nigeria; if so, what is its nature; and can he say whether an export duty has been imposed by the Government of Bolivia on shipments of tin ore?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): There are export duties on tin ore and on smelted tin in the Federated Malay States and the non-Federated States, but not in the Straits Settlements. In the case of tin ore the duty is less when export takes place under guarantee that the ore will be smelted in the Straits Settlements, Australia, or the United Kingdom. In Nigeria there is a royalty on the export of tin, and in Bolivia an export duty on tin ore. The duties generally depend on the price of tin. I am sending the hon. Member a statement setting out in detail the nature and amount of the duties.

BANK EMPLOYES (WHITLEY COUNCIL).

Mr. A. SHORT: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Bank Officers' Guild, representing the majority of the employés in the English banks, have approached the British Bankers' Association for the formation of a national Whitley Council and that this request has been refused; and whether, in view of the fact that it is the policy of the Government not to ignore representative associations of employés and also to promote the establishment of Whitley Councils, he will use his good offices with the British Bankers' Association in the setting up of a national Whitley Council for the banking profession?

Mr. SEXTON: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the possibility of a financial crisis arising in the event of the clerks employed in the various banks throughout the country withdrawing their services; and whether, in view of the unrest that exists among the employés in the banking profession, he can take any action to secure the setting up of a national Whitley Council?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The position in respect of the establishment of a Whitley Council for the banking profession has been laid before me, both by the Bank Officers' Guild and by the Bankers' Clearing House, so far as England and Wales is concerned. Until agreement, which does not at present exist, has been established between the two sides, it is difficult for the Ministry to take further steps in the direction of setting up such a Council. My hon. Friends may, however, rest assured that the matter is receiving my close attention, and that if it appears that any action can suitably be taken by me which will assist, I shall avail myself of the opportunity. Also, I will certainly consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, should the need arise.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the present crisis, he will consider the advisability of instituting a public inquiry into conditions of employment and rates of salary in the banking profession in Great Britain?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As at present advised, I do not think I should institute such an inquiry.

Mr. GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, up to this point, the banks have absolutely refused either to recognise the Association of Clerks or to reply to the question of a Whitley Council, and does he not agree that, in view of the crisis pending, it is important to give a lead in a matter of that kind?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon Friend will read the answer I gave to Questions 22 and 24 on the question of the establishment of a Whitley Council. Beyond that, I should like them to settle their affairs themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

COMMERCIAL TRAINING.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the present training period allowed in commercial subjects in the various training centres is stated to be insufficient to enable trainees to become
efficient; and whether he will consider the advisibility of extending these courses to twelve months, and so fit these ex-service men to take up positions in the commercial world?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 9th June to my hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division, in which I explained that it has been decided that a period of nine months is normally sufficient for training men in commercial work, provided that proper care is exercised in selecting the candidates for such a course. I further explained that divisional directors have power to give an extension of 25 per cent. on this period where circumstances appear to demand this in individual cases.

Captain COOTE: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases technical advisory committees do make recommendations for an extension of the period of training, and those recommendations are turned down by the Ministry in London, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that must have occurred before the new power, to which I referred in the last part of the answer, was given. It was quite recent. If I am wrong in that, and it is still being refused, I will look into that.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists in these centres on account of the rate of payment to the trainees?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The question before us is the question of the length of the course. I am aware there is dissatisfaction with the rate of allowance, but that is not the question before us.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the cause of the delay of a year or more and consequent waste of unemployment allowance in arranging training for demobilised soldiers recommended as suitable cases through the proper channels; and if he will state how soon the man, of whose case particulars have been supplied to him, will begin his training in the building trade, seeing that he has now completed 12 months' idleness at the public cost since he applied for training?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I find that the case of the man to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers was first forwarded to the Divisional Director of Training for London on 20th January, 1920, and that the man applied for training in a trade which at the moment could not absorb any further trainees. He was therefore interviewed on 18th February, when he decided to apply for training in masonry. The local technical advisory committee concerned accepted him for training on 22nd April. The man has been instructed to commence training to-day at Cricklewood. I am as concerned as my hon. and gallant Friend about the time it takes to get a man into training. But there are a number of inevitable difficulties—difficulties of obtaining suitable premises, plant, equipment, and tools. Then there are the discussions with the national and local technical advisory committees upon the question as to whether the respective crafts will, so far as can be seen, offer reasonable prospect of employment at the end of training. All these things take time. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no efforts of mine will be spared to reduce the time absorbed by these processes to the absolute minimum.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the cause of the delay in this case of seven months from the time this man applied to the Local War Pensions Committee and the time it came to his Department in January last, and is it not a fact that many other cases of the sort require considerable inquiry?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid it is. As regards this case, I have gone through it in the greatest possible detail, and if I thought there had been any avoidable and appreciable delay, I should say so. But I think everything has been done, in the circumstances and the difficulties which arose, that could be done. But I will undertake to go into any cases that are brought to my notice, and I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having brought this one.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have written many letters to his Department regarding similar cases? If there is to be preference given to cases put on the Paper succinctly, would he be surprised at an enormous number being put down with specific and detailed information?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be glad to look into any cases that my hon. and gallant Friend desires to send to me. No preference will be given, but a fair show to all. I will do my best to get any men trained as soon as possible.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the correspondence I have sent him?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the reply of the right hon. Gentleman mean that—

Mr. SPEAKER: Question No. 27! [See Col. 1244.]

PENSIONS.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the distress existing amongst ex-service pensioners and their dependants owing to the continually increasing cost of living; that since the present pension scale became operative the cost of living, as shown by official figures, has largely increased; and that the Royal Warrant of 6th December, 1919, stipulates that no readjustment of pensions in consequence of the rise or fall in the cost of living shall take effect before 1st April, 1923; and whether, under the exceptional circumstances, he will recommend the Government to increase pensions to ex-service men and their dependants on the same basis that increase of wages is paid to railwaymen and others, namely, that where the cost of living increases by 5 per cent., a corresponding increase shall be made in pensions, such increase to be retrospective to 1st January, 1920?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The pensions of ex-service men and their dependants were revised last September at a cost of £22,000,000 per annum, when, apart from an increase in the flat rate of pension ample to cover any increase in the cost of living to that date, many other benefits were given such as the wife's allowance of 10s. a week. After very careful consideration it was decided to deal with future fluctuations in the cost of living as follows. The continuance of rates of pension based on the cost of living in 1919 was guaranteed to 31st March, 1923, at which date (and thereafter annually) the rate of pension will, subject to a minimum flat rate of 33s. a week in any case, be varied up or down according as the cost of living in the previous year is above or below the figure in 1919.
I am aware that the cost of living in the first five months of 1920 somewhat exceeds the cost of living in 1919, but it is obviously impossible that the State should increase rates of pension all round to meet increases in the cost of living while not reducing them in the event of a fall. I see no reason for supposing that the pensioners would benefit on the whole from a continually fluctuating rate of pension as compared with the guarantee they now enjoy that there will be no reduction for three years. The immense number of pensions now paid and the fact that it is necessary to issue the appropriate documents (pay books, etc.) three months in advance would in any case render impracticable alterations in the rates at frequent intervals.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SHOPS AND BUSINESS PREMISES.

Mr. DONALD: 27.
asked the Minister of Health when the Select Committee will be set up to deal with rents of shops and business premises; whether on report of this Committee It is intended to introduce a new Bill or amend the Town Tenants Act; and meantime what protection will business men have who have come to the end of their lease and have established a business, yet have received notice of ejectment without any hope of alternative accommodation?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope that the Select Committee will be set up within the next few days. I cannot of course say what steps will be taken as the result of their inquiry until they have made their report.

BAKEWELL RURAL AREA.

Mr. C. WHITE: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the erection of houses in Hathersage and Outseats, in the Bakewell rural council area is held up owing to the failure or inability of the said council to provide an adequate supply of water; whether he is aware that an adequate supply can be obtained from the Derwent Valley Water Board, whose supply runs through the parishes in question; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure an adequate supply being provided and thus facilitate the building of houses which are much needed in the district?

Dr. ADDISON: The Bakewell Rural District Council are now in communication with the Derwent Valley Water Board with a view to a supply of water for the houses to be erected at Hathersage. The Council do not themselves propose to erect any houses at Outseats, but I understand that they have been in communication with the property owners desirous of building there with a view to agreeing with them as to the incidence of expense in connection with a supply of water.

Mr. WHITE: Would the right hon. Gentleman instruct the housing committee to inquire into these circumstances on the spot?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, he has done so. that is the source of my information.

UNOCCUPIED HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now say how soon he will be able to lay before the House the Government's promised proposals for preventing the with-holding of dwelling-houses from occupation?

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid I cannot name a definite date, but the hon. Member may rely upon my introducing the proposals in question at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the increase in the number of these unoccupied houses, there is very great inconvenience caused in the industrial areas?

Dr. ADDISON: From the information at my disposal I do not think that the number of this particular class of houses has increased. My hon. Friend is fairly well aware of the state of Parliamentary business, but a Bill will be introduced as soon as possible.

SLUM AREAS.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue for publication in the Press each week, in order that the public may learn what steps have been taken to improve the housing conditions in England, a statement containing the number of houses and acreage of slum areas condemned, the number of new houses completed and occupied, the number of
houses under construction, and the number of houses for whose construction contracts have been signed?

Dr. ADDISON: As I have previously explained, it is not practicable to deal adequately with the slum problem until much more has been done to meet the acute housing shortage. I have already arranged that information shall be published monthly (which, I think, is better than weekly) of houses completed, under construction, and in signed contracts, in the Monthly Command Paper giving particulars of housing schemes.

Mr. MALONE: Do the Government decline this request on account of the result of recent bye-elections?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not know anything about bye-elections. The question is whether you want a statement monthly or weekly. I think monthly is better than weekly.

OVERCROWDING.

Mr. MALONE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Land Inquiry, Vol. II., Urban, published in 1914; whether he has studied the mass of evidence contained in that publication concerning the conditions of existing housing accommodation, especially the evidence between pages 7-40 and 181-204; whether he is aware that the conclusions of the Report were, briefly, that the majority of urban workmen have to live in houses which are over-crowded to the acre, built in long uninteresting rows, without sufficient space round them, and frequently without the free access of light and pure air; that between 5 and 10 per cent. of workmen live in slums, that is, dwellings unfit for human habitation, and that 10 per cent. of the whole population are living in over-crowded conditions; whether the conditions stated in this Report are much worse now than they were in 1914 owing to the increasing population and the cessation of building during the War; and whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health had only produced 1,144 houses up to 1st May, 1920, he will take more drastic action to improve the conditions of the people?

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of the matters to which the hon. Member refers, and I have received much additional information through the recent housing survey. Special measures are being taken
to press forward with the provision of new houses, for which the arrangements are complete for large numbers to be supplied if sufficient money and labour is forthcoming.

LABOUR (REINFORCEMENT).

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the steps which he Las taken, or proposes to take, to secure reinforcement of labour in the building trade?

Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and myself have been in negotiation for some months with the trades unions in regard to the employment of ex-service men in the building trades. I have myself laid a proposal before the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and this has been further discussed with a Committee of operatives, which was appointed by the Parliamentary Committee as a result of my conference with them. I regret that no scheme has yet been brought into operation. I understand that a definite proposal is at present under consideration by the Joint Industrial Council of the building trades. The whole question of labour in the building trade is engaging the attention of the Government.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that at the present time there is sufficient labour in the building trade for the 110,000 houses for which he has sanctioned tenders?

Dr. ADDISON: I am quite sure that the amount of labour available for this work is entirely insufficient.

Mr. A. SHAW: Is Scotland covered by these conferences?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, as far as I know.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the great importance of this question, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange with the Leader of the House for us to discuss this matter immediately a decision is come to by the Trade Union Congress, or whatever they call themselves?

Dr. ADDISON: I will consult my right hon. Friend about it.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman announce the decision as soon as it is come to?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I will arrange for a question to be put down.

Mr. MALONE: Is it not the fact that a great amount of labour is being expended on factories, not otherwise required, which are producing useless articles?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I think there is some justification for that remark.

Mr. SHORT: Is there not sufficient labour to deal with the schemes that have already been endorsed?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir, there is not. There was last week a shortage of 10,000 men on the schemes already in operation.

Colonel GREIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there is a shortage of at least 14,000 men?

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEMES.

Mr. GILBERT: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make any statement as to his giving consent to housing schemes proposed by the London County Council in which rooms were designed 8 feet 6 inches high and drains were to be laid in concrete, which proposals were not approved by his Department; and can he state if any delay of the schemes have been caused by this difference of opinion?

Dr. ADDISON: I have arranged with the County Council that sewers may be encased in concrete, except where the officials of the Council and of the Ministry are agreed that this precaution is not necessary. I have not, so far, been able to agree, on the ground of cost, to rooms more than 8 feet high where the houses are not more than twelve to the acre.

Mr. GILBERT: Is there any objection to local authorities building rooms at a greater height than 8 feet if they bear the cost themselves?

Dr. ADDISON: Certainly not.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. LUNN: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he will publish a list of all local authorities who have applied and received sanction to build houses by direct labour, together with the proposed number of houses and the estimated cost per house in each case?

Dr. ADDISON: A statement as to local authorities proposing to build by direct labour will be published in the "Housing Journal," and I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. SHORT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that information is published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Dr. ADDISON: No doubt it will be if an hon. Member asks for it.

HOSPITALS (STATE AID).

Mr. MALONE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the financial position, the National Hospital for the Paralysed and Epileptic in Queen's Square, W.C., is closing; whether he is aware that many other hospitals in London are in a similar condition; that many of these hospitals are making appeals to charity and displaying such notices as "Help Us to Keep Open"; and whether, in view of the professed objects of the Ministry of Health and the repeated declarations of the Prime Minister and others concerning the new social conditions proposed to be introduced by the Coalition Government, he will consider the desirability of giving immediate State aid to such hospitals, which have hitherto relied on charity or, alternatively, to nationalise the medical services, as has been successfully accomplished in Russia with considerable benefits to the working classes?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that the hospital in question, and two other hospitals in London, are contemplating closing in whole or in part, and the question of giving interim assistance to hospitals in serious financial difficulties is under consideration by the King's Fund. The position of many other London hospitals gives ground for anxiety, and I am considering what measures can be taken to meet the situation without prejudicing the voluntary principle and without losing the services of the voluntary workers, to whose co-operation I attach the greatest value. I have never been in favour of nationalising the voluntary hospitals, and the information available as to the sanitary condition of Russia has not led me to modify my views on this point.

Mr. MALONE: Would not the £3,000,000 being spent on tawdry finery by the War Office be better spent if it were appropriated to the hospitals?

Dr. ADDISON: That does not affect the question of the existence of voluntary hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Committee appointed under the Profiteering Act to inquire into the cost of building materials has made its Report; and, if not, whether he can say when this Report will be received?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The four Sectional Sub-Committees appointed by the Central Committee to investigate cement and mortar; light castings; stone, bricks and clayware, and timber have not yet made their reports. The Committee, which has been investigating stone, bricks and clayware, and the Committee investigating timber, are now engaged in the preparation of their draft reports, and I hope that they may be published in a short time. I am unable to say when the other Committees named will be in a position to make their reports, but it is hoped that they will have completed their investigations at an early date.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lack of accurate information as to whether or not there is profiteering in the various stages of building materials manufacture is having a very serious effect on labour, and will he take all possible steps to expedite these reports?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is always the danger of getting inaccurate information by hurrying these Committees. It is difficult to advise them. Better leave the matter to them.

ROAD-MAKING MATERIALS.

Mr. GILBERT: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the great difficulties that municipal road authorities in London have in obtaining suitable and cheap road-making
materials; and can he assist these authorities in any way, either by his Department obtaining supplies direct or by securing that reasonable shipping facilities be granted to the Channel Islands, where a good deal of suitable material came from in pre-War days?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to answer this question. The attention of the Minister of Transport has frequently been called by highway authorities, both in London and in the provinces, to their difficulties in obtaining road-making materials, and the officers of the Ministry are doing everything possible to assist. I am informed that the shipping facilities for the transport of material from the Channel Islands have improved during the past few months.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFFIC).

Major WHELER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a feeling of discontent in working-men's clubs and institutes at the continuance of the Liquor Control Board and its restrictions; and whether he can now make a statement as to the introduction this Session of legislation dealing with this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous replies on this subject.

Major WHELER: Would it not be possible to have some regulations introduced during the summer in order to enable men on the allotments to obtain refreshments, as the present hours are unreasonably early?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention of the Government to bring in this Bill as soon as they can, but I think there is a general feeling in the House that it would be a mistake to remove more of the restrictions until we have had an opportunity of discussing the whole subject.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Is there the same objection to a slight modification, in order to meet the alteration in the habits of the people depending on the time of the year?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a matter which the Central Control Board have always had in view.

WATER COMPANIES (CHARGES).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulties in which many statutory water companies now find themselves owing to their inability to increase their revenue sufficiently to meet their seriously increased and still increasing expenditure and owing to the fact that they are now charging up to their statutory limits, and that consequently their dividends are in many cases being reduced to vanishing point, and that it is therefore impossible or exceedingly difficult in many cases to raise capital for the necessary extensions which have now been suspended for so many years, it is the intention of the Government to introduce general legislation, and, if so, when, enabling the charges of water companies to be varied to meet the altered conditions?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to reply to this question. The subject has already been under consideration, and it is proposed to introduce general legislation as early as practicable.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the importance of keeping our water supplies in an efficient state and to the desirability of bringing the matter forward as soon as possible?

Dr. ADDISON: I am fully aware of the importance of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN DEBTS (DANTZIG).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that firms and individuals who are owed money by Germans resident in Dantzig, which was a German town before the War, have been informed by the Foreign Office that they cannot claim settlement of their debt by means of the Public Trustee because, owing to the Treaty of Versailles, Dantzig is no longer part of the new German Republic; and whether steps will at once be taken to remedy this injustice to persons who are owed money by Germans
resident in areas which have ceased to be German by the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a fact that debts due by persons domiciled within the territory of the free city of Dantzig on January 10th, 1920, to nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers do not come within the provisions of the Clearing Office scheme set up under Article 296 of the Treaty of Versailles. I regret that I can hold out no hopes of any modification of the Treaty in this respect.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the goods in a great many cases have actually been delivered in Germany and are now actually being used in the German Republic; and does he see any reason why persons who are owed money by Germans who, by the force of the Treaty of Versailles are now living in a free city, should not have the same rights as though the latter were still living in Germany?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No doubt there will be cases of hardship, and I do not see how the matter can be dealt with otherwise.

TURKEY.

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if, before finally agreeing to the lines on which the Supreme Council framed the Turkish Treaty, the opinion of the Viceroy of India's Council was sought; whether the opinion of important and experienced Mohammedan leaders in India as to the effect the revised treaty would have on Mohammedans in our Eastern dependencies was obtained; and, if so, whether they approved or opposed the policy to which the Government of this country has given its approval?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The views of all the sources of information referred to in the question were taken fully into account in the framing of the Turkish Treaty.

ARMENIA.

Mr. C. PALMER: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the arrangement under which President Wilson is to delimit, in his personal capacity, the boundaries of Armenia, any decision has been arrived at as to meeting the cost of delimitation; and, is it likely to fall on the British taxpayer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The only expense that can be foreseen in connection with
the delimitation of the frontiers of Armenia by President Wilson, would arise from the possible necessity of tracing the frontiers on the spot. The Treaty provides that this would be done by a Boundary Commission, the expenses of which would be borne in equal parts by the two parties concerned, namely, Turkey and Armenia.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is there any precedent for the representative of a foreign state, being invited in his personal capacity, to intervene in international problems; what are the special qualifications of Mr. Wilson in his private capacity for this delicate work; and have we not already had mischief enough from his interference?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot give a precedent, but I should be rather surprised if there were not one. As to President Wilson's qualifications, that must be a matter of opinion, but in the view of the Government he is qualified.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MILNER REPORT.

Captain R. TERRELL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when the Milner Report may be expected; whether he is aware that in the meantime senior posts in the Egyptian Government previously held by British officials are being filled by Egyptians; and by what authority this change of policy in the government of Egypt is being carried out?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Milner Commission expects to issue their Report on Egypt before the House rises in August?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As regards the issue of the Milner Report, I can only renew the assurance conveyed in my reply to the hon. Member for Wrekin on 12th May that Lord Milner and his colleagues can be relied on to formulate their conclusions without any avoidable delay. I have no information lending colour to the suggestion contained in the second part of the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Henley, and the last part therefore does not arise.

KANTARA CAMP.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the insanitary condition of the camp at Kantara and of the absence of proper provision against the heat; whether there are in the camp and hospital over 200 officers and 100 nursing sisters that have been awaiting passage home for varying periods up to three months and more; and what prospect he can hold out of their return and of the immediate improvement of the unhealthy conditions and deficiencies existing?
78. The following question stood on the paper in the name of Captain Terrell: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of officers and other ranks have been detained for months at Kantara, Egypt, waiting for transport to this country for demobilisation; can he state the reasons for this delay; and what steps are being taken to rectify this delay?

Captain TERRELL: Before the question is answered, may I point out that certain words have been omitted from the original question, and that the last paragraph should read: "What steps are being taken to rectify these irritating and costly delays?"

Mr. SPEAKER: We do not admit adjectives into questions.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: A Report has been asked for by cable, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. Meantime I must not be understood to assent to the correctness of the allegations contained in the question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the extraordinary importance to life and death in hot climates of remedying conditions which have been described by the senior officer as a scandal and the worst he has seen during his campaigns, including the Balkan Wars?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I quite realise the importance of the matter, and a cable has been despatched to ascertain the facts.

Captain TERRELL: Why is the Department not aware that hundreds of officers and other ranks are detained at Kantara? May I press for an answer to that?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice if he attaches importance to that question.

Captain TERRELL: But that really was my original question—the one on the Paper.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. Member asks why we are not in possession of certain information. I will try and ascertain if he will put down a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ESTATES (COMPULSORY SALES).

Sir CECIL BECK: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, after in vain making repeated applications to the authorities for protection, certain land owners in Ireland have been compelled to negotiate the sale of portions of their estates to the Sinn Fein leaders in order to secure the safety of the estate labourers engaged upon essential and vital agricultural work; and what steps the Government propose to take?

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I will be glad to inquire into any specific case that the hon. Member cites.

DAIL EIREANN LOAN.

Mr. WILLIAM COOTE: 62.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to a document issued under the authority of the Reverend Dr. Fogarty, Roman Catholic bishop of Killaloe, and others, which is issued as a prospectus in Ireland inviting subscriptions to a fund of £250,000 for Sinn Fein finance; and, in view of the illegality of this prospectus, have the Government taken any steps to prosecute its promoters?

Mr. HENRY: The name of Dr. Fogarty does not appear on the prospectus of the Dail Eireann Loan. It does, however, appear on a list of trustees of the fund. It is impossible to prove the connection of the persons named with the loan, and prosecution is, therefore, not practicable.

Mr. COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this fund is operating in Ireland, and that it is illegal on the face of it in that it promises repayment when the Irish Republic is set up? Is he further aware that in many cases
treasurers of this fund have been arrested on suspicion? Why should officials in the lower ranks be arrested, while the trustees at the top are allowed to go free?

Mr. HENRY: I am aware that people connected with the fund have been not only arrested, but convicted. In the case referred to in the question there is not sufficient evidence at present to justify a prosecution.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS, TYRONE.

Mr. W. COOTE: 63.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the manner in which the recent local government elections were conducted in county Tyrone under Proportional Representation; that there was not adequate police protection in the Omagh district, and that Unionist voters were intimidated and dared not in isolated districts come to the poll; and will he, in face of the evidence cause an investigation of the facts?

Mr. HENRY: I have heard statements made suggesting that intimidation was exercised in some isolated districts, and I am having inquiries made. There was adequate protection in Omagh district, but it is impossible to prevent anonymous documents being sent by post. It is open to any candidate to bring a petition before an Election Court if he can prove intimidation was exercised.

Mr. COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the night before the poll there were notices posted in isolated districts where there are few Protestants threatening them with death if they voted on the morrow? Is he aware that these Protestants very naturally were prevented recording their votes, and that as a result the complexion of the whole County Council has been changed? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proper or possible to set up the County Council under these conditions?

Mr. HENRY: That is a matter for the Election Court, which has full jurisdiction, and any candidate who can show there was intimidation can raise the question.

Mr. COOTE: But the County Council will meet on Saturday and will start proceedings, although these things have been done. Although the election may later on be set aside, they will have set up the Council, have elected the Chairman, and have co-opted members in the meantime.
Is there no power to prevent them doing that until an investigation has taken place?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir. Application can be made to an ordinary court by anyone interested.

MILITARY GUARD (SURRENDER).

Earl WINTERTON: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to state what is the result of the inquiry held into the circumstances surrounding the surrender of a guard of His Majesty's troops in Dublin to armed desperadoes without firing a shot?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir; the report of the court of inquiry has not yet been received.

Earl WINTERTON: How long is the inquiry likely to take?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that question.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the report as soon as it is received?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will inquire as to the probable date at which it might be received.

Earl WINTERTON: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any inquiry has been held into the circumstances surrounding or any disciplinary action taken against the troops concerned in the cases, respectively, of the disarmament of a military cyclist patrol and of three military despatch riders by armed desperadoes in Ireland recently?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Immediate inquiry is always made into occurrences such as those referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and the resulting disciplinary action which may be taken rests with the general officer commanding. I am not yet aware what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken in the cases referred to, but I am inquiring, and will inform the Noble Lord.

TROOPS (RAILWAY TRANSPORT REFUSED).

Mr. MOLES: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether on 15th inst. a party of soldiers on duty were refused transport from Waterford to Kilkenny, the driver of the train refusing to act on the ground that the
soldiers carried ammunitions; whether it is a fact that only half the men had rifles and that none of them carried any ammunition; whether the adjutant at Waterford on being sent for withdrew the soldiers who had rifles, the remainder proceeding entirely unarmed to their destination; whether it is the policy of the Government to send soldiers unarmed and without ammunition through areas where large numbers of Government officials have been assassinated, or whether it is proposed to give them proper protection; and what action it is proposed to take in this matter in view of the grave position of affairs in large areas of Ireland.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to answer this question. I regret the hon. Member's question reached me too late to go into the matter. I can only say that no official Report of this incident has yet been received, but that I am now in communication with the military authorities in Ireland on the whole question.

Mr. MOLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman not answer the latter part of the question, as to what is the policy in respect to this matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any instructions have been given by the Government to the railway companies in Ireland as to the action they are to take when incidents like this arise?

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has now arrived to cease the attempt to put down an armed rebellion by means of unarmed men?

Mr. BILLING: Is it a fact that any orders have been given to any senior officers to move their men unarmed over any particular area?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer all these questions offhand. If hon. Members will put down questions, I will do my best to give them the information. I understand that the policy is to protect our soldiers, and steps are being taken to that end.

Mr. MOLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that policy is being pursued when an adjutant disarmed these men?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has had no notice of these matters. If these questions are regarded as important, I think the hon. Members ought to give notice of them.

Sir F. HALL: I was only going to ask whether, if the right hon. Gentleman has any reply to, his telegram by to-night, he will be good enough to give it on the Adjournment.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, I shall be very pleased to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

EXPORTS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the impracticable form of the new coal export regulations recently issued to collieries by the Coal Controller whereby, for example, the West Carterthorne Colliery Company, County Durham, was advised that the total amount of coal they would be permitted to export this month would be three tons and that this tonnage must be shipped to foreign countries in the following exact proportions: 45 per cent. to France, 18 per cent. to Italy, 8 per cent. to Norway, 8 per cent. to Sweden, 7 per cent. to Denmark, 2 per cent. to Spain, and 12 per cent. to other foreign countries; can this method of allocation be reconsidered; and will he consent to receive a deputation from colliery companies and coal exporters thereon?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The total amount of coal to be exported from different exporting areas has been fixed in consultation and by agreement with representatives of those areas.
Individual allocations to collieries as to the quantity to be exported by them are made by the local Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, who will no doubt consider any anomalies which may have arisen.
The attention of the local Committee has been drawn to the case mentioned by the hon. Member.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 90.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the recent order restricting the export of coal, many collieries are working short time,
coal exchanges are closing for three days a week, and a number of ships are lying idle for want of coal cargoes; and whether, in view of the dislocation of the coal trade, he will consider the desirability of revoking the order?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Government policy concerning the export of coal was adopted after careful consideration of all the circumstances. I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that there has been, in consequence of the new restrictions, any serious dislocation of the coal trade, and I am not prepared to recommend any alteration in the present policy.

Captain TUDOR-REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last two days a colliery in South Wales has actually been closed down in consequence of this restriction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Major MORGAN: If the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries in Swansea, he will find that that is so.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. Member will give me the information, and will also say whether it is due especially to these circumstances, I shall be very much obliged.

MESOPOTAMIA AND PERSIA.

Mr. PALMER: 60.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the growing feeling of disquietude at the military adventures of this country in Mesopotamia and Persia and the consequent expenditure of public money at a time of grave national stringency; whether he can give an assurance that the War Office will not be permitted to incur further liabilities in Mesopotamia and Persia or embark upon new military enterprises, with their inevitable charge on the national Exchequer, without the formal assent of Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government fully realise the necessity of cutting down military expenditure in every direction, and there is no question of increasing our commitments in the areas referred to in the question; on the contrary, we are endeavouring to curtail them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When shall we get some statement of the Government policy in Mesopotamia and Persia, and will an opportunity be afforded of discussing it, in view of the heavy expense that is being incurred?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have already had one discussion on it, but if the House desires a further opportunity I think it should be given.

COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS).

Mr. C. WHITE: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Colony or Protectorate will be compelled to introduce preferential duties in its tariffs against the wish of the non-official representatives of their respective legislatures?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson, for Lieut.-Colonel Amery): If any such case arise, the Secretary of State will consider the question with due regard to all the circumstances.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was not that the case on the Gold Coast in connection. with the export duties on oil?

Colonel WILSON: I understand that it was the case, and therefore it was necessary for my right hon. Friend to review the position.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend defending the Government for using the official majority to force through this legislation?

EAST AFRICA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Ainsworth circular; and when he will send a copy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme?

Colonel WILSON: Copies of the circular have now been received. An amending circular is about to be issued, and the two circulars will be laid on the Table at the same time.

QUEENSLAND (GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES).

Mr. SWAN: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the comparative cost of living in Queensland for the years 1913 up to the present; if he will issue a White Paper with the concerns taken over and managed by the State showing income, expenditure, and liabilities; and also the hours and wages of the workers engaged in such concerns?

Colonel WILSON: The Secretary of State has not at his disposal the necessary information, and he does not consider that he could properly call on the Queensland Government to furnish it.

Mr. SWAN: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the statements that have been made as to these concerns and their economic effect, and, as there is a strong desire manifested in this House to get an understanding how these concerns have worked, would it not be in the interest of the House that a statement should be furnished as to the economic effect or otherwise of the working of the concerns in Queensland—information which has often been requested from the other side of the House.

Colonel WILSON: I doubt whether any information that could be supplied at the present time would be of any real value. If the information is not contained in the Australian Year Book—which comes out every year—I will see if anything can be done to meet the hon. Member's wishes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in 1906 we asked for information from the Colonies on similar matters, and a very valuable return was obtained? Could not that be repeated?

Mr. LAWSON: Has it not been publicly stated repeatedly that the cost of living in this country has gone up 35 per cent. since 1919?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TROOPS AT ENZELI.

Mr. HANCOCK: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give or obtain any information concerning Lieutenant Arthur Edgar Pyle, requisitioning officer at Enzeli, seeing that his parents
cannot learn anything about him or his wife, and are very uneasy because of the serious news given in the Press as to recent events in that region?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am informed that the force at Enzeli was withdrawn without any casualties, and information to this effect has already been published in the Press.

RECRUITING.

Captain COOTE: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the supply of recruits for the Regular Army is now equal to the demand?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir; the supply of recruits is still proving adequate.

Captain COOTE: Does that not largely invalidate the case made out for the purchase of new scarlet uniforms?

SOLDIERS' GRAVES (EGYPT AND PALESTINE).

Mr. GILBERT: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made for the preservation and upkeep of British soldiers' graves in Egypt and Palestine?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Imperial War Graves Commission are now actually taking over the cemeteries in Egypt for permanent construction. They have appointed a local executive committee to carry out the work in that country. The principal architect has completed designs for the cemeteries, and the terms of contract are being considered. In Palestine the cemeteries have not yet been taken over by the Commission, but the architect has visited the country and made his preliminary sketch designs, and in the case of four the final designs have been completed.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of buildings occupied by the Navy and Army Canteen Board which were built by the Government on War Department property in the area covered by the Aldershot Command and in the area covered by the Eastern Command; and what is the approximate total value of these buildings in the respective areas and the total amount of rent paid to the Government for these buildings by the Navy and Army Canteen Board for the year ending 31st December, 1918?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Inquiries are being made, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

FRENCH ARMY.

Mr. MOSLEY: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the approximate number of French troops mobilised in June, 1913; what is the approximate number mobilised at the present time; whether any reduction has been effected between the peace establishment of the French Army in the year 3913 and the projected peace establishment of the French Army in the future; what was the cost of the French Army in the year 1913; and what is the estimated cost for the current year and for the normal peace year of the future?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In June, 1913, the strength of the French Army, including Colonial troops, amounted to about 655,000, all ranks. The Budget for 1914 allowed for 28,701 officers and 762,963 other ranks, i.e., a total of 791,664. The number of French troops under arms at the present time is, approximately, 660,000, all ranks, made up of 470,000 white and 190,000 coloured troops. The military expenditure for 1913, including the various Colonial forces and Army pensions, was about £70,000,000. The estimated cost for the current year, less pensions, is 4,365,774,874 francs. The cost of pensions for Army and Navy (between which no discrimination is made in the French Estimates) amounts to 922,498,660 francs. As regards the future, I am unable to supply the information asked for.

TROPICAL DISEASES HOSPITAL, BATH.

Mr. WIGNALL: 82.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the delay in the erection of huts at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Bath, for the accommodation of pensioners suffering from tropical diseases is causing inconvenience to the medical staff and unnecessary suffering to the men; whether he is aware that the huts, or sections of them, were delivered months ago; and whether he will take the necessary steps to have the huts erected without delay?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The huts in question were originally required for the accommodation of nurses, who have since been housed elsewhere. It is now proposed, when funds are available, to utilise the huts for additional ward accommodation.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the arrangements are made for the reception of these sufferers, and that, when the report came up last week complaining of the delay in completing the work, a strong resolution was passed?

Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of those facts. All that I know is that the Ministry of Pensions have given the reply which I have just read.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 83.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how many private buildings are still occupied by Government Departments; and what is the total annual cost of them.

Sir A. MOND: The total number of private houses in London requisitioned or hired on short tenancies by, or lent to, my Department, and still in occupation by Government staffs, is 85. The annual cost in rent is approximately £32,000.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) ACT, 1918.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 84.
asked the Attorney-General the number of prosecutions he has successfully effected against traders under the Defence of the Realm (Food Profits) Act, 1918.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): Proceedings under this Statute do not require the fiat of the Attorney-General. The Ministry of Food has instituted proceedings in one test case. It is not clear what the hon. Member means by a successful prosecution. A prosecution is successful when it fully elucidates the facts, so as to establish either innocence or guilt. It is an error to suppose that the Crown has an interest in securing a conviction. In the case referred to it was established
that excess charges had been made, and the learned Judge thereupon ordered an account to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Statute.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of cases up and down the country in which he might have prosecuted; and can he inform the House how it is that in only one case a prosecution has been instituted, and that in the case of a trader in Manchester, where competition runs very high?

Sir G. HEWART: I am not aware of any such allegations. No case of this kind has been submitted to me. I am surprised to hear that competition is keen in Manchester.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The standard of morality is higher in Manchester!

LOUTH INUNDATION.

Mr. DOYLE: 88.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the divided expert opinions as to the cause of the disaster at Louth, if he will arrange for a scientific investigation in order, where possible, to enable other crowded districts to take steps to effectually protect themselves against any possible similar disaster?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to answer this question. I understand that the Meteorological Office have already undertaken an inquiry into the meteorological aspects of this occurrence. If anything is discovered which would enable local authorities to take any steps likely to be useful in the event of any similar occurrence, it will, of course, be made known to them.

FOREST FIRE, ABERDEENSHIRE.

Mr. STURROCK: (by, Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the forest fire in Aberdeenshire, which was reported to-day to be entirely beyond control; and whether, in view of the grave danger of the situation, he will inform the House whether military or other outside aid
will be employed to check the conflagration?

Mr. MUNRO: Neither the Forestry Commission nor my Department has any information regarding the forest fire beyond that which has appeared in the public Press. I have, however, communicated with the Admiralty and the War Office with the view of ascertaining whether any help of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend can be given?

FILEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Sexual Offences Bill [Lords],

The Lords communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords] be referred to the same Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament as proposed in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords]."

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Workington Harbour and Dock [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Llanelly Corporation Water [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Charles Murray.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it is necessary for me to deal at any length with the objects of the Bill. They are shown in the Bill itself. The object is to confirm an agreement made between His Majesty's Government in London and His Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty's Dominion of New Zealand in relation to the Island of Nauru. The agreement is shown in the Schedule to the Bill, and it consists of 15 Articles, and the 15th says:
The agreement shall come into force on its ratification by the Parliaments of the three countries.
This agreement was signed on 2nd July, 1919, by the Prime Ministers of the three Governments concerned. I quite understand that it is necessary for me to amplify to a certain extent the Bill as presented to the House. Perhaps in the first place I had better say one or two words with regard to the island itself. I presume there are very few hon. Members who do not know where the Island of Nauru is, but as some may have got a little rusty in regard to their geography of the Pacific Islands, I may say it is an island, known also as Pleasant Island, situated to the west of the Ellice and Gilbert Islands, south of the Marshall Islands, and to the north-east of the Solomon Islands. It is within one degree South of the Equator. It is about eight miles square. It is an uplifted coral atoll, the highest point of which is about 110 feet above sea-level. For innumerable ages past it has been inhabited by numberless sea birds, whose dejecta have permeated the coral rock to a considerable depth, something over 40 feet. I need not go into the history of the island beyond saying that it was discovered by Captain Hunter in 1798, and was annexed by Germany in 1888. At the outbreak of the War
it was administered as part of the Marshall Islands. On 9th September, 1914, the island was unconditionally surrendered to His Majesty's Australian ship "Melbourne," and was included in the capitulation of Rabaul on 17th September. At the request of the Government of Australia, the administration was then undertaken by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific. There are some 1,700 indigenous natives of the island, and they are extremely handsome, intelligent and Christianised race, and are fairly well educated. They have expressed, since the date of the capitulation their keen desire to remain under British rule, being aware of the advantages which accrue under British rule from their neighbours in the Ellice Islands, and during the War they petitioned the King to be allowed to remain under his rule.
During the discussions of Paris preliminary to the Treaty of Peace, it became clear that the mandate for Nauru would come to the British Empire, and the question of the future administration of these islands became a subject of conversation between the Dominion representatives who were interested. Those Dominion representatives obviously were the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. This is practically a rock of solid phosphate, and I would remind the House of the Dominions Royal Commission Report of 1917, in which it was pointed out how dependent the Empire was on foreign sources for supplies of phosphate. There is a demand for phosphate, which is likely to be largely increased in the future, and the question of the supply of rock phosphate which can be converted into super-phosphate for fertilisers, is one of the most urgent importance. The rock phosphate found in Nauru is not generally applied in its crude state. It is converted into super-phosphate by means of sulphuric acid. I will give one or two figures in regard to the urgent demand for rock phosphate and super-phosphate. The average net imports into the United Kingdom from 1909 to 1913 were 487,000 tons. The exports of super-phosphates during the same period were 121,000 tons, and the chief consumers were the wheat-growing districts of Australia and New Zealand.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Where did they come from before?

4.0 P.M.

Colonel WILSON: Mostly from Florida or North Africa. They were lower-grade phosphate ores. In 1919 it Ns as apparent there was going to be a general shortage of wheat throughout the world and the tendency to exhaustion of the new soils of the world meant a largely increased demand for phosphates. Germany had maintained her agricultural production with the aid of large quantities of phosphate manures. In fact, in 1913 she used no less than 3,500,000 tons, including basic slag. In 1913 the United Kingdom used some 743,000 tons of phosphate, and if a policy of increased arable land is to be pursued that amount will have to be nearly doubled. Canada and South Africa are also increasing their demands. The production of superphosphates has now been greatly facilitated by means of numerous acid plants erected in the United Kingdom and the Dominions for munitions purposes. As a result of these discussions in Paris the solution of the problem of the island of Nauru which commended itself was that the administration in Nauru should be conducted under the general control of the three Governments of the Empire who are most directly interested, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom;that the Pacific Phosphate Company mentioned in Article 7 of the Schedule should be bought out and the minerals should be worked on a non-profit-making basis, which is to say that the whole of the requirements of these three Governments were to be met at cost price, the cost price to include interest and sinking fund for the repayment of the capital debt, the surplus phosphate being sold elsewhere at commercial rates. An agreement was arrived at between the three Governments on this basis. The agreement has already been confirmed by the Australian Government by Act 8 of 1919, and by the New Zealand Parliament by Resolution of both Houses. Both the New Zealand and the Australian Governments are most seriously impressed by the urgent need for more phosphate. I have seen numerous reports dealing with this question, and it is almost of vital importance to these countries, as I believe it is to us, that they should be secured in the amount of these fertilisers. Under this Bill, which, as the House will see, consists of two Clauses, one confirming the agreement to which I have alluded, being the Money Clause of the Bill, and
the other giving a short title to the Bill, there are certain sums which are payable by virtue of the agreement entered into with the Pacific Phosphate Company, and I realise, therefore, that it is necessary to prove to the House the value of the property which it is proposed to purchase. In the first place, the existence of phosphates in Nauru was not discovered by Mr. A. F. Ellis, of the Pacific Islands Company, till 1900, only twenty years ago, and the first estimate of the quantity visible was put at some 42,000,000 tons. In 1913 a German mining engineer, Karl Elschner, made a report in which he said that the phosphate area was over 1,800 hectares, and the average content at least 12 tons per square metre. If that estimate be accepted, it means that there is a minimum of 216,000,000 tons of phosphate. I have seen even more optimistic figures. I am informed that the Australian Inter-State Commission's report of 1918 referred to a German estimate of 300,000,000 tons. I would not put the amount too high, but I think I am fully justified in saying that the amount visible at the present time is at least from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 tons. I am supported in that opinion by a report which was rendered to the New Zealand Parliament, in which it was stated that information obtained from very valuable sources indicated that it might be estimated that anything from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 tons were available, and possibly more. The phosphate in Nauru is of very high grade, and, if I might quote again and refer to the information which I have myself received, I am well within what I ought to say on this subject when I say that Nauru is believed to have the largest reserve of high-grade phosphates in the world.
Parliament is asked to supply money for taking over this undertaking. It was necessary, therefore, that the title of the Pacific Phosphate Company to the mining rights in Nauru should be very carefully examined. A concession was granted by the German Government in 1905—I do not wish to go into details—and it was continued for 94 years from 1st April, 1906. It was given to the German company then mining this phosphate, known as Jaluit Gesellschaft, and it gave the exclusive right of exploiting the guano phosphate deposits existing in Marshall Islands Protectorate. This concession, with the consent of the German Govern-
ment, was transferred to the Pacific Phosphate Company, the successors of the Pacific Islands Company, by agreement, dated 22nd January, 1906. The company also owns the mining rights in Ocean Island, which is under the British Crown. It has an area of only about two square miles, but it rises to a height higher than Nauru, namely, to about 265 feet, and it is inhabited by about 600 natives, who are about the same type as in Nauru. The phosphates in this island extend to an even greater depth than in Nauru, 57 feet being known. The same German mining engineer, Karl Elschner, estimated the amount of phosphates visible in Ocean Island at about 15,000,000 tons. An agreement was concluded with the Pacific Islands Company for the mining rights of Ocean Island for 999 years from 3rd May, 1900. After the formation of the Pacific Phosphate Company this agreement was altered to a licence, which was issued to the new company in 1902, to run for 99 years from 1st January, 1901, so as to coincide with the period of the Nauru concession. As I have said, it was decided to buy the company out, and, if hon. members will turn to Article 7 of the agreement, they will see that under that article "any right, title, or interest which the Pacific Phosphate Company or any person may have in the said deposits, land, buildings, plant, and equipment … shall be converted into a claim for compensation at a fair valuation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it an English company?

Colonel WILSON: It is an English company. Under that article, it would have been possible for the Government to have gone to arbitration, but, as a matter of fact, it has adopted the course of voluntary sale, and I am of opinion, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies is strongly of opinion, that this is the best course in every possible way, because in the transfer we shall have the voluntary assistance of all the officials of the company. Although this agreement only refers to Nauru, the enterprises of Nauru and Ocean Island are so closely connected that the agreement to buy out the Pacific Phosphate Company economically involved extension to the other. It is, of course, desirable, if the House approves of this Bill, to buy the whole of the assets of the
Company in both islands. After a considerable amount of negotiation between the company and the Governments concerned, the purchase price has been fixed at £3,500,000. It will be paid as seen in Articles 8 and 14 of the agreement. The United Kingdom will pay 42 per cent., Australia 42 per cent., and New Zealand 16 per cent. For this sum the three Governments acquire full benefit of both concessions and of all the leases and other rights, and also the offices in Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide, buildings and piers in the islands, and extensive system of tramways, machinery power, electric light installation, boats, gear, etc. The production of phosphate rock in these two islands, in spite of the increased demand, of course has been limited during the past few years by shipping facilities, but, from figures which have been given to me, I am quite convinced that there should be no difficulty whatever in maintaining an annual output of from 400,000 to 500,000 tons. Before the War the world production was about 7,000,000 tons, mostly of a much inferior quality to that produced in the Pacific Islands. It is estimated that all the expenses of administration under the agreement, including the cost of the Sinking Fund and the interest on the capital, will not amount at the most to more than threepence per unit—each one per cent. of phosphate of lime in a ton is a unit—and, as Nauru rock averages 84 per cent. of phosphate of lime and Ocean Island averages 86 per cent. of phosphate of lime, it will be seen that under the agreement, at cost price—that is, covering all the expenses which I have mentioned—it will be possible for Australia and New Zealand to obtain their phosphate at about £1 per ton cheaper than they do at the present time, and at the same time provide for all the necessary repayment of capital and interest. It will give this country also great opportunities as regards a cheaper provision of phosphate. Naturally the distance is far greater from Nauru to the United Kingdom than to Australia, and therefore we shall not get it exactly at the same price, but it will be far cheaper than we are paying at present. The present price is 6d. per unit, and out of that will be payable the percentages under the agreement. With regard to the price of £3,500,000, I am informed, and I am at liberty to say, that Mr. Watt, while still Treasurer of the Commonwealth, when over here went into
the question very carefully indeed and satisfied himself that it was a reasonable price.

Mr. ACLAND: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the paid-up capital of the company?

Colonel WILSON: The authorised capital of the company was £1,200,000, all fully paid shares except 375,000 £1 ordinary shares of which 10s. was paid. While there have been only nominal dealings in the shares, last December the Market value of them averaged, roughly, something like £5 each.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What was the value before the discussion in New Zealand and Australia and the publication of the terms?

Colonel WILSON: I understand that the shares have not moved for some considerable period, and the figure I have given is the actual market value on returns which have been received. I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the actual figures of output showing the capital value of the shares. For instance, in 1913, the last year the full amount of shipping was available, the shares stood at this figure, and the output was 375,000 tons.

Mr. HAILWO0D: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us the price that phosphate is fetching in this country?

Colonel WILSON: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the actual price. I would like to say that, after the most careful investigation and consultation, I am convinced that the price, while not unfair to the company, is undoubtedly a good bargain for the Governments concerned. If hon. Members will study the figures which I have given as regards the amount of phosphates in these islands and the amount of phosphate lime, they will realise that it is undoubtedly a good investment. There are various articles in the Schedule to the agreement. I will call attention to Article 1, in which it is set out that the administration of the island shall be vested in an administrator. The first administrator is to be appointed for a term of five years by the Australian Government, and thereafter the administrator will be appointed in such manner as the three Governments decide. A further part of this Article gives the Administrator power to make ordinances
for the peace, order, and good government of the island, and particularly to provide for the education of children on the island, to establish and maintain the necessary police force, and to establish and appoint courts and magistrates with civil and criminal jurisdiction. Article 2 deals with the expenses of the administration which, so far as they are not met by other revenue, are to be defrayed out of th proceeds of the sale of the phosphates. Articles 3, 4 and 5 deal with the appointment of a Board of Commissioners which is to consist of three members, one to be appointed by each of the Governments concerned. The 6th Article deals with the title to deposits which is to be vested in the Commissioners. I have dealt with the 7th Article and also with the 8th and 14th Articles. The 9th Article deals with the working and sale of the deposits. The 10th Articles provides that
The Commissioners shall not, except with the unanimous consent of the three Commissioners, sell or supply any phosphates to, or for shipment to, any country or place other than the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand.
They are to have the first claim on the deposits. Article 11 says:
Phosphates shall be supplied to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand at the same f.o.b. price, to be fixed by the Commissioners on a basis which will cover working expenses, cost of management, contribution to administrative expenses, interest on capital, a sinking fund for the redemption of capital, and for other purposes unanimously agreed on by the Commissioners and other charges. Any phosphates not required by the three Governments may be sold by the Commissioners at the best price obtainable.
Under this Article it may be said that the capital which is going to be advanced by the three Governments concerned will be safeguarded and will be refunded by means of a sinking fund.

Mr. ASQUITH: Before he leaves Article 11, will the hon. and gallant Member explain the last paragraph?

Colonel WILSON: It means that the phosphates will be supplied at cost price to the three Governments concerned. Any other country which may be supplied will be supplied at the market price, that is, at the best price obtainable for the raw material.

Mr. ASQUITH: It says "may," not "shall."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The open door.

Colonel WILSON: Article 13 provides that there shall be no interference by any of the three Governments with the direction, management or control of the business of working, shipping or selling the phosphates. There is considerable urgency for the Second Reading of this Bill, because if ratification is given by this House, as by the Parliaments of Australia and New Zealand, the agreement with the Pacific Phosphate Company will come into force on the 1st July. I regret very much the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is away on official duties in Canada. I know the deep interest he has taken in this project ever since it was started. Both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies feel very strongly that this Bill is of first importance to the Empire and to this country for the supply of necessary raw material.

Mr. JESSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why the administration of this island is to be confined to Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, with the rest of the colonies outside.

Colonel WILSON: The colonies which are primarily interested by their geographical position are New Zealand and Australia, and it is obvious that they should have the administration.

Mr. JESSON: What about South Africa?

Colonel WILSON: These Pacific islands are not under the control of South Africa. Obviously, from their geographical position, they must come under the administration of Australia and New Zealand. Since I received this Bill, I have examined it very carefully, not in any way as one who has fathered it from its inception, but rather with a very critical eye, having regard to the amount of public money which is involved. After studying all the papers and reading all the engineers' reports and looking through all the details connected with the matter, I am fully convinced that there was never a more sound investment for this country and the Empire, not only from the financial point of view, but also from the point of view of securing for all time—I do not think I exaggerate in saying for all time, after giving the figures of the amount of phosphates available—an all-important raw material for the rejuvenation of our land, the demand for
which is made now to a very large extent and a demand which must inevitably increase as the years go by.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "this House declines to proceed further with a Bill which is in direct conflict with the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as agreed by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles, regarding the open door and the principle of trusteeship to be imposed upon Powers undertaking a mandate on behalf of the League."
I move the rejection of this Bill in order that we may have it made quite clear to us what is the policy of our Government in regard to mandates. We have been putting questions recently in the House as to why it is that we can get no announcement made of the provisions to come into force in regard to the administration of the Cameroons, Togoland, what was formerly German East Africa, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and other countries, and invariably the answer has been "We can tell you nothing. The present military administration must go on, and we can tell you nothing regarding our policy and nothing as to what is going to be the policy of administration in any one of these territories until the mandate has been delivered by the Council of the League of Nations, after it has been agreed upon by the Allies." Here in this Bill we have an exception. We are asked to pass a Bill establishing what seems to me a quite irresponsible administration in an island, admittedly with a small population, where we are establishing a gigantic State monopoly, competing with the other phosphate countries of the world as mandatories of the League of Nations. The hon. and gallant Member, in moving the Second Reading, did not touch upon any of these vital questions of principle. He gave a very admirable company prospectus in regard to this island. It is good business, we all agree. It has been said that as a result of the War we have collected many mandates, and evidently this is going to be one of the most satisfactory and the most lucrative.
Let us see how far the speech of the hon. and gallant Member is going to carry us. Are we going to apply to the Mesopotamia oilfields the kind of administration and the kind of Government monopoly
which we are proposing for this island with its phosphate deposits? It is most important in view of the things that have been said in France and in the French Chamber regarding our position in the Near and Middle East, and more particularly in regard to Mesopotamia, that we should have it made perfectly clear from a responsible member of the British Government what are our rights as mandatories over the natural resources of territories for which we are to assume trusteeship on behalf of the League of Nations. There was not a word in the hon. and gallant Member's speech about trusteeship. There was hardly a word about what is meant by mandate. The first question I have to ask is regarding the preamble of this very important agreement. It says:
Whereas a mandate for the administration of the Island of Naura has been conferred by the Allied and Associated Powers upon the British Empire, and such mandate will come into operation on the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
I gather that that preamble means that this is a mandate which comes not from the League of Nations but from Allied and Associated Powers. That is to say, it is the Allied and Associated Powers who have conferred the mandate and not the Council of the League of Nations. That is an important question of principle which we ought to have cleared up once and for all. It says that the mandate has been conferred upon the British Empire. Mandates have been conferred upon the Union of South Africa with respect to German West Africa, upon Great Britain with respect to German East Africa, upon New Zealand with respect to Samoa, upon Australia with respect to the North-West Pacific Islands, and German New Guinea. Apparently this mandate has not been conferred upon Australia and New Zealand but upon the whole British Empire. That at once raises a vital principle, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesson) who interjected a remark was quite right. If the mandate is conferred upon the whole British Empire you cannot without gross violation of our whole Imperial arrangement confine the mandate to two self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country, and shut out the others.

Mr. JESSON: Except by agreement.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Except by agreement with the Canadian Government, the Government of the Union of South Africa
and the Newfoundland Government. If the mandate has been conferred upon the British Empire as a whole it is essentially a matter for the whole Empire, and it is a point upon which I should like further explanation, because it does raise a very interesting question of Imperial constitution. This question of the British Empire acting as a whole as a mandatory raises certain difficulties. I gather that in Article 22 of the Covenants inserted in the Treaty of Versailles the mandatory power has in all cases to render accounts periodically to the Council of the League of Nations regarding its trusteeship That is, it has got to make reports upon the condition of natives and things of that sort. Who is to make that report? Is it to be Australia, New Zealand or Great Britain? If such a report is to be made we gather that the Covenant is not to apply, and if so, why does it not apply? From Articles 1 and 2 it appears that the administrator who is responsible for the government of this island and its population of 1,700 inhabitants is an entirely irresponsible person. That is, he has complete powers to do exactly as he likes and is a bigger autocrat than ever the Tsar of Russia was.
The Articles are very remarkable. It may be said that this administrator will be appointed by the Australian Government, and therefore, the Australian Government being responsible to the Australian Parliament, any laws or ordinances made by this administrator can be called in question by the Australian Parliament. I very much doubt if they can. He is not paid by the Australian Parliament. He is only appointed by the Australian Government, and once they have appointed him their responsibility, so far as I can see, ceases altogether. Personally, I believe that this administrator should be responsible to this Parliament, that if the mandate has been conferred upon the British Empire the administrator on behalf of the British Empire must be appointed by, and responsible to, the Imperial Parliament, and that no other administrator should be appointed. If there had been a mandate given to Australia then an Australian administrator is the right thing. Then they will have those territories for which they are responsible. But as the British Empire is responsible, this administrator ought to be responsible to this Parlia-
ment. Then there is the question of his remuneration. Apparently he is to have the power of raising other revenue. That is to say, he can put on what Customs duties he likes and levy what taxes he likes on the natives of the island. All expenses of administration, including the expenses of the administrator, so far as they are not met by other revenues, shall be defrayed by the proceeds of the sale of phosphate. What is the other revenue? Presumably it is the revenue raised in the island from the natives or British residents who go there, Customs and Excise duties, and other taxes in the island. What is not clear is whether the administrator has absolute power to control that revenue and to say what that revenue ought to be.
I come now to a really startling proposal, the proposal contained in Articles 10, 11, 12 and 13. Article 10 lays down the principle that these three Commissioners shall not, except with the unanimous consent of the three Commissioners, sell or supply any phosphate to or for shipment to any country or place other than the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand. The hon. Member, I hope, will satisfy the House, if he can, that that provision does not conflict with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It would mean that this produce only escapes by fifty miles from going automatically to Japan, and we have got to remember that Canada will want phosphate, and that there is hardly a country in the world which will not be requiring phosphate in the near future. The wheat consumption of the world is going up, and the wheat producing soil is increasing, and there are hardly any of the great corn growing countries in the world in which the demand for phosphate will not steadily increase. The point arises as to whether a Government which is acting as a mandatory has a right to establish a Government monopoly of the raw material of the territory of which it is trustee. That is a root principle. Because, if that is once established, I do not see why the French in the Cameroons should not establish a Government monopoly of all the native produce of that country, and why all the produce of other places should not be similarly regulated.

Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is it not a fact that what the Government is dealing with is not assets which they get under their mandate, but something which they bought from a company, which is already in possession at the present time, and that their title is derived from the company to deal with them as they like, and not from the mandate?

Colonel WILSON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The fact is that if we took no action whatever in this matter the Pacific Phosphate Company would continue to exist, and the League of Nations would have nothing to say to it. All we are asking the House to agree to do is to negotiate a voluntary sale with this company, and the three Governments would step into the shoes of the company.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that I am under any misapprehension. The Pacific Phosphate Co. has absolutely no power as a company to restrict the places to which it is to sell its produce. There is nothing in the constitution of the company to say that it shall sell nothing to Canada, America or Japan. What you are doing is to establish an entirely new situation. You are nationalising the company. You are pursuing a primitive socialistic policy. You are going to limit—what the company could not do—the sales of the produce which are possible, and you are going to confine them not merely to private persons, but to three Governments, let alone any other members of the League of Nations, let alone the Allies and Associated Powers who, you say, have conferred this mandate upon you. The whole situation changed completely when you abolish the private company. The remark of my hon. and gallant Friend bears no relation to the new situation produced by this Bill which is an absolute innovation in the whole British Empire. Will this scheme be laid before the Council of the League before it comes into operation? [Laughter.]
The hon. Member (Mr. Palmer) laughs. I know he thinks that the League of Nations is no good, and that a great many people in this country agree with him, but a great many people want to see the League of Nations a reality and to see the Treaty of Versailles carried
out, and they do not want this country to be the country which is going to fly in the face of the conference with results which are bound to be extremely far-reaching, bcause it is really a test question. If these mandates are a sham, are only camouflage, it is much better to be out of the Covenant, much better to withdraw our signature from the Covenant. Then we should know where we are. Either you are going to act up to Article 22 or you are not, because that is going to be the question asked in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and all these countries of the world. There is no use in saying that we are working this in the Belgian part of East Africa, that we will see that the French are not allowed to conscript people in Togoland under Article 22, but when it comes to applying that article to our own possessions, then we are going to tear up the mandatory principles and create these government monopolies. I hope that we shall have some very clear statement as to where we stand in the matter of Nauru Island in relation to the League of Nations, and in relation to the mandate conferred in the Allied and Associated Powers, as I am not satisfied that the administration that you propose to set up in Nauru Island is the responsible administration or is in any way conceived on modern democratic principles of responsibility to the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. MOSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment on the ground that it constitutes a direct negation both in substance and in spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. We are told by my hon. and gallant Friend that these phosphate deposits are to be supplied to the Governments of the countries that exercise the mandate at cost price, and to other countries at the market price. How can he justify this arrangement under Article 22? We are setting up in this island a national monopoly on the lines of the worst days of the predatory imperialism of the past. This christianised and handsome people to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred in such felicitous terms are merely being brought under our wing with a view to the exploitation of their natural resources and the theft—I can use only that word—of the natural riches of their island. Is this in keeping with the mandatory
system as laid down in Article 22 of the Covenant? We are now at the very beginning of things with regard to the League of Nations. Some of us in this House desire, and mean if we can, to make it a reality. We are subject daily to attacks of the most bitter nature in the Press of nearly every country of the world. We are suspected throughout the world of a desire to utilise the League merely as a pretext to enrich ourselves, to seize vast tracts of land and to acquire riches which otherwise we would have no excuse for possessing. In view of the development of American opinion with regard to the League, in view of what is taking place in France, I hardly think it worth while, for the sake of the good bargain which my hon. and gallant Friend held out like a carrot before the nose of the House, to antagonise public opinion to the extent that would be involved by this proposal. I hope very much that the Government will not shelve this matter by some quibble to the effect that it is merely a private deal with a private company. We have been given the mandate for this country. We are setting up a vast Government monopoly which will enrich us to an enormous extent. Those are the facts which will be observed in foreign countries, and we shall labour under the judgment of having utilised the League as a pretext merely for promoting our personal interests. I do not know how many Members of this House feel as strongly as some of us do on the subject of the League of Nations. Some of us feel that it is the one dominant question in politics, the one thing that really matters. Other Members, of course, may take the view that it is desirable that the League should be shipwrecked at the earliest possible moment, and they may welcome Bills of this nature as a means to that end. We do not take that view. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider their position in regard to this Bill, or I at any rate shall feel compelled to vote against them.

Sir J. D. REES: It was not the League of Nations that got us the Mandate for administering this island, but our own right hand which got us the victory. I would be so bold as to say of the League of Nations that up till now non res sed spes est.

Lord R. CECIL: Non res!

Sir J. D. REES: I gave my Noble Friend that chance. I would venture to defend this little Bill for the very reason which I think induced my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) to tear it to pieces, namely, that it is good business. Time and again in this House there seems to be the uttermost pains taken, the most meticulous care, lest any arrangement whatsoever should endure to the benefit of British subjects, British trade, the British Government, and the British Empire. Why, in the name of wonder, are such pains taken to ensure that the expenditure of British blood and treasure, whatever else they may do, shall not benefit British trade and the British nation? For the life of me I cannot see. When my hon. Friend drags in, by the heels as I think, Mesopotamia, Togoland, and other countries, surely it is sufficient for this little Bill to deal with this little Island, and there is no particular need, nor is it particularly incumbent, that within the narrow ambit of the circumstances here treated, any general declaration of policy covering everything from the great desert of Mesopotamia to a little island of phosphates in the Pacific, should be set out. In moving the rejection of the Bill my hon. Friend spoke of waiting for the Mandate of the League of Nations. Surely the League is not able to operate at present. If it does pronounce its decision, how is it to enforce that decision, and in what way will that really influence the situation? This Mandate does not derive from the League at all. How can it possibly be argued that a subject like this should wait until the League is in a position not only to give a decision but to enforce it? My hon. Friend was very severe upon this Bill because he said it read like a company prospectus. There are prospectuses and prospectuses, and when a prospectus proceeds from a good origin and states the facts, it is no discredit to it that it is a company prospectus. I think the Government is a pretty respectable source of origin for what is stated in this prospectus.
If the affairs of this little island are a matter for the decision of the whole Empire, what is to become of the whole of the earth if every little bit of it, even a paltry and insignificant fraction like this, which is only valuable because it happens to have this commodity, is to
wait to be dealt with by the whole Empire? I think it would be quite impossible to deal with the matter at all or to bring it to any satisfactory conclusion. I was surprised to hear it suggested that the administration of this island, with its few hundred inhabitants, was likely to suffer from there being introduced into it the constitution which is suggested by this Bill. Was the constitution it enjoyed previously of so valuable a character? My hon. Friend said that the new constitution would bear comparison with that of Czarist Russia. Those of us who have any sense of comparison have learned to regret the rule of the Czar in Russia, but now when we contrast it with the bloody tyranny of the Bolshevists we would be very glad to see it back. My hon. Friend is not serious in what he says. He knows perfectly well that the administration proposed will be an honest and honourable administration, and that the Administrator and the Commissioners are not likely to bleed its few inhabitants, but will probably provide them with far higher wages than they ever drew before. Does my hon. Friend want an Upper and Lower House in this little Island? What kind of administration is it that he thinks would be sufficiently democratic?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. Friend is entirely misrepresenting what I said. I said that the Administrator should be responsible to one Parliament or the other, either to the Australian Parliament or to the Imperial Parliament. I never suggested a democratic franchise or a democratic constitution, or anything like it.

Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend, I think, said that this constitution was totally at variance with modern democratic ideas. I hope I have not placed an unjustifiable gloss upon what he said. In point of fact, I think he made a great deal too much of what is really a small matter and that the real objection to the Bill is that it is good business. This objection is made whenever anything comes forward which may savour of the slightest preference for any British interest. Immediately the poor native and all these considerations come into play, and here the League of Nations is brought in as the final arbiter. The League of Nations is no new thing. It is as old as the hills as a means of
providing universal peace. I sincerely hope that this new organisation will prove more successful than its predecessors. None the less, I trust that the disposal of a small matter like this in a manner which is not likely to do anyone any harm, but is calculated to do the Empire good, will not be asked to wait for the final decision of the League.

5.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: I confess that it appears to me that the House, in being asked to pass the Second Reading of this small Bill, is being asked to take a decision which may have very far-reaching results. More than once I have expressed to this House my great anxiety as to the policy which the Government are pursuing with reference to the League of Nations. I confess also that, if the Government intend to proceed with this Bill in its present form, my doubts will be very largely resolved, and not in a sense favourable to the conclusion which I hope to be able to draw. The policy of mandates is one of the most important thing which was designed to be done by the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was not the invention of President Wilson. Personally I have a high respect for President Wilson, and I am not in the least ashamed to say so. As a matter of fact, this particular proposal, from its very inception to the last line of Article 22, was entirely a British conception. I had nothing to do with it personally, or very little, except that I supported it. It was, as everyone knows, the original suggestion of the Cabinet of the day, presumably at the instigation of General Smuts. It was in his brilliantly written book on the League that the idea was first publicly advocated. What is this policy? It is quite plain what it is. It was designed for two main purposes. The first purpose was to secure that countries populated by a backward people should be administered with due regard to the welfare and safety and prosperity of those people. The second great object was to put an end to the doctrine of conquest by force of arms. It is perfectly plain, if you read Article 22, that, in respect of all countries inhabited by backward people, and it is plain in the Treaty, in which we have pledged our signature and honour,
that that conception of conquest by force of arms should be for ever ended. Let me just establish that by reading the provisions of the Covenant which apply to this matter. They are all contained in Article 22, and I do not think I am committing any indiscretion in saying that Article 22 was drafted, not by myself in any respect, but by the British Delegation, and presented by the British Delegation. The preamble to that Article says:
To those Colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late War have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that securities for the performance of this trust would be embodied in this Covenant. The best methods of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience, or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it and, that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
That is to say that they were not to become the property of the country to whom they are allotted, but are merely entrusted to them to be administered to them for the benefit of the inhabitants, and for the benefit of the rest of the world. There follow a number of provisions pointing out various conditions, and as to these matters, I would ask the Attorney-General to give his close attention to the matter, as I think these various conditions are absolutely inconsistent with the terms and provisions of this Bill. This is one of the provisions:
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
As I read it, that is by the assembly of the League or the Council, that is to say, that the degree of authority to be exercised in each of the mandated territories is to be defined not by an Act of Parliament, as the Government propose to do it here passed in a national Parliament, but by an international authority on the general principles laid down in the Covenant. It does appear to me to be absolutely inconsistent—and I speak in
the presence of much greater authorities on international law than I can pretend to be—with the provisions of the Covenant to proceed with this Bill. If you look at the provisions of the Bill, in the first place, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has pointed out, we are, as the Preamble sets out, to have a mandate granted not by the League, but by the Treaty. It may be so, but the terms have to be settled by the Council of the League. To come to Article 1, you find that by the agreement full power over the administration is taken, quite irrespective of anything that the Council of the League might say, or quite irrespective of any reference to the Council or the League by the administrator to be appointed by the parties to the agreement. I cannot myself square that with the solemn agreement which we entered into in Paris in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The administrator is to have power to make Ordinances, to provide for the education of children, to establish and maintain the necessary police force, and to establish and appoint courts and magistrates. The whole thing is handed over to him by this agreement, and we are asked to ratify that when, as plainly as words can possible describe it, we have agreed that the amount of authority to be given to the Mandatory was to be settled by the International Authority either of the members of the League itself or by the Council of the League. It seems to me if we go on with this proposal it is perfectly fatuous for us to talk any more about scraps of paper. Then we come to the substance of this precious agreement to secure for the three Governments the whole produce of this island. I will not say if the League were to sanction that arrangement that that would be inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant, but I do say it is altogether inconsistent with the spirit of Article 22. Undoubtedly, there was no idea that the Mandatory was to use this power in order to secure a monopoly of the riches of the mandated country. That is absolutely inconsistent with the whole framing of Article 22.
Hon. Members have referred, and quite rightly, to the present international position. I do not want to say anything which will add to the difficulty, and I know that in dealing with these matters one has to exercise the greatest caution
and the greatest discretion. I liked to believe, and I did believe for a certain time, that there was nothing in it but a little effervescence in the various countries, and that it did not represent any real body of people. I made it my business to make some inquiries, and I am afraid that that view is not one which it is reasonable to hold. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that there is considerable feeling in more than one country, in allied and associated countries, that we have done very well for ourselves, a very inaccurate statement, as we know. I am not saying I share it. I do not think that any country has done at all well out of the War. On the contrary, I agree with what a foreigner said to me to-day, that though some countries had been beaten, no country had won. Whether that is so or not, I am merely describing a state of feeling which it is right this House should have clearly in mind before proceeding with this Bill. There is no doubt whatever that that is the impression which exists. It is a very unjust impression in many respects, but I must say that though this in itself is perhaps a small matter it will give a great deal of handle to our enemies in various countries all over the world. They will say, "You talk about the League, you have fine professions, and you say you want universal peace, and you are sacrificing nothing, and you ask us to make a great many sacrifices for universal peace; you ask us to forego our just rights and our just claims and our just precautions in the interests of a final definite permanent settlement. Yet when you have to apply it to yourself there is not a trace of it; but it is the old policy of grab, and there is no difference whatever from the old system, and you merely take by force of arms in a way that Napoleon might have taken or any great world conqueror. They could not have proceeded differently from the way in which you are proceeding in this Bill."
You are going in the first case that has to be dealt with under the new system to set a fatal and disastrous example. When we come to discuss the mandate of Africa or any other place to various countries, and if we say you are not to do this because it is not consistent with the spirit of the mandate and that you are to limit yourselves in this way or that, how can we insist on the open door, how can we insist on equal trading
rights, how can we do any of these things if We give our sanction to a measure of this kind? Some hon. Gentleman suggested that this is nothing but sanctioning a purely commercial agreement handing over the powers of the phosphate company to the British Government. It is nothing of the kind. The phosphate company in fact was working under the German Government—let us remember that—and while working under the German Government it traded freely with those who became subsequently the enemies of Germany. It traded freely with Australia and New Zealand, and I daresay with this country. Here we are going to preclude the possibility of a single ton of phosphate ever being sold to anybody except the three Governments concerned and for our own personal use. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. J. F. GREEN: Is it not the fact that the majority of the phosphates when it was run by this German company went to Germany.

Lord R. CECIL: The majority may have, but it was perfectly free trading—and here you are going to prevent it. But it is the principle of the thing I care more about than the actual dealing with these phosphates. I do feel myself that if we go on with this Bill we are in effect tearing up provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which happen to be inconvenient to us. I do not really see how we can look anybody in the world in the face when we ask them to obey those provisions which are inconvenient to them. That is a plain, straightforward principle, and I very much hope we shall have an announcement from the Government that they will reconsider this proposal, or, at any rate, not proceed with it until the League of Nations has had an opportunity to settle under the terms of Article 22 what are to be the rights of the Mandatories.

Mr. ASQUITH: It is quite true that this Bill deals with a small island, thinly populated, remote from the world, and which probably many of us hardly heard of before, but I entirely agree with my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) that, small as are the dimensions of the case measured by pecuniary or material considerations, it involves a most important question of principle. The object of this Bill is to confirm an agreement entered
into, I think, nearly a year ago between three Governments—the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The Preamble recites that the mandate for the administration of this island was conferred by the Allied and Associated Powers on the British Empire. What power had the Allied and Associated Powers to confer a mandate on the British Empire, or upon anybody else? Remember that at the time this agreement was entered into, the Allied and Associated Powers, all of them, were parties to the solemn Covenant of the League of Nations. I entirely agree with my Noble Friend that Article 22 of that Covenant, if not in terms, certainly by necessary implication, prevents any mandate of this kind being conferred by any other authority than the League of Nations. It is not suggested, certainly not by the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Government, that the League of Nations are parties to it. It has not been conferred by them, and, in my judgment, the use of the word "mandate" in the Preamble of this Bill is a misnomer wholly inappropriate and inapplicable to the case; and, if it mean what it professes to mean, it certainly implies an express violation of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This is not merely a verbal question. It is a great deal more, for, if a mandate be given, as all the Allied and Associated Powers agreed in a case in which it should be given, then from first to last the League should have complete control and authority over all its provisions. My Noble Friend has recited, and I will read again, the penultimate paragraph of Article 22:
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
Ex concesso, it has not been so defined in this case. This is an agreement, therefore, which has no legal or international validity of any sort or kind, and which indeed, in the terms in which it is made, is in flagrant contravention of both the letter and the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It is a small case in itself, but it would be a precedent. If this be done in the case of the Island of Nauru, there is no reason why similar agreements should not be secretly and behind the back of the League of Nations concluded all over the world, for the so-
called mandating of other territories. This so-called mandate, which is not a mandate at all, is given to the British Empire. What is the British Empire? The British Empire does not consist of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and yet here is a mandate given to the British Empire which is confined, as far as its execution and actual operation are concerned, to three specified members of that Empire. The administrator is to be, for the time being at any rate, appointed by one, namely, the Australian Government. Then we come to the tenth Article, and we find that the Commissioners who are to carry it out, and who are to represent these three constituent but not exhaustive members of our Empire,
shall not … sell or supply any phosphates to, or for shipment to, any country or place other than the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand.
This is the latest form of preference! Here is a mandate given to the British Empire, confined as far as its practical operation is concerned to three of its constituent members, and, what is much more important, when you come to hand over the phosphates, they are to go to three selected parts of the Empire, and not to the rest.
I think South Africa and Canada are as much entitled as any other part of the Empire to have a voice in the matter, but what is far more important is that here, in the execution of this supposed mandate—which, as I have said, can only legitimately proceed from the League of Nations representing the world at large—you are going to give preferential treatment to particular parts of your own Empire as against the rest of the world. A worse example to set, and one in more open contradiction to the provisions of the fifth paragraph of Article 22—which provides that in the execution of the mandate equal opportunities shall be secured for the trade and commerce of all the other members of the League—I think it is impossible to conceive. It is illegal in its origin, unequal in its operation; it is opposed in all respects to the letter and the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and I earnestly trust His Majesty's Government will reconsider it, and not press it.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I confess I do not look upon this
agreement as such a departure from principle as would justify the kind of speeches we have heard from my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) and from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asquith). I think there is some misunderstanding as to the importance of this from the point of view of principle. Had I understood that I should have to speak on this, I would have been better informed than I am now, but I think it is important that I should say something as representing the Government. What are the facts? Speeches in condemnation of this agreement have assumed that we are doing something to the detriment of other nations by this Bill which would not happen under any other arrangement, but what hon. Members who take that view forget is the fact, that this island of Nauru is in effect a phosphate island, as there are only some 1,000 or 1,500 inhabitants of any kind. It has been throughout a commercial undertaking; it was in the possession of a company, originally German, which was bought up by a British company, and if we do not pass this Bill, that company would have every one of the rights which we are now claiming for the British Empire. It could treat the product of the island in any way it liked, and therefore it is obvious that, so far as the general good of the world is concerned, nothing is lost by transferring this power to a body represented by the British Empire as compared with a private trading company.
There is another point which I think the House has omitted to notice. The sole reason why we are introducing this Bill now—otherwise it would have waited like the others until the mandates had all been treated together—is that the three countries have bought out this company by an agreement, and that agreement cannot be carried into effect without an Act of Parliament. It was necessary to have this Act in order to complete the agreement, and already an Act for that purpose has been passed by the Australian Parliament. It is all very well for hon. Members to speak in these very strong terms about morality, as if there was any departure from it here, but we have got to remember the susceptibilities of those parts of our Empire, the two Dominions concerned in this matter, and I think the greatest caution at least should be used before implying that there is anything in this of which any one of us has any reason to be ashamed. Let me deal first with
what my right hon. Friend put as a matter of subsidiary importance, but which I think is of immense importance. The mandate is to be given to the British Empire, which does not consist of the three parts of it concerned in this agreement; and my right hon. Friend assumed that all this had been done without any knowledge on the part of the other portions of the British Empire. He is entirely mistaken. I was myself in Paris when the British Empire Delegation considered this subject, and it was a very difficult subject to deal with. The use of these phosphates, which had always gone to New Zealand and Australia, was vital to this country. These Dominions were vitally interested in them, and it was difficult to get any agreement which would satisfy everybody. It was, therefore, discussed in the British Empire Delegation, at which all the Dominions were present, and an agreement of this kind was come to as the best method in all the circumstances of the case. So that you may put on one side any question of unfairness to other parts of the British Empire. If the mandate can be given to parts of the British Empire, is there anything, from a moral or any other point of view, which forbids you to give it to the British Empire as a whole? That is all that has been done. Because of the variety of interest between the different Dominions, it was decided by the Supreme Council that the right way was to give it to the Empire as a whole, and to leave it to the Empire to decide as to the best method of dealing with it. That is what has been done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By the Supreme Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, by the Supreme Council. Now we come to the real gravamen of the charge, which is that in doing this we are doing something which upsets the whole League of Nations, and shows complete selfishness on our part. As regards the selfishness, I do not see how any sane man could say that that comes in at all. These three portions of the British Empire have bought out an existing company on terms which that company think fair. They have taken the risks involved, and what unfairness is there in saying that if they think it wise—it may be wise or unwise—to risk making this investment, where is the immorality in taking a course of that kind? As re-
gards the mandate, it is stated that this throws over the whole of the League of Nations, but let me point out that it is necessary to get this Bill to obtain the sanction of Parliament for the agreement. Our passing this Bill does not in any sense preclude the League of Nations, if they think the arrangement is an unfair one, from refusing to confirm it. All that we are asking the House of Commons to do to-day is two things-first, to ratify the agreement which is necessary to buy out the company, and second to ask the House of Commons to agree that the use we propose to make of it is a fair use. The powers of the League of Nations are not taken away. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) does not agree with me, and I am not surprised at that, but I am entitled to express my views. The very Clause which my Noble Friend read anticipated that the mandates should all be submitted to the League of Nations—
In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual Report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

Lord R. CECIL: It is the next paragraph.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Very well—
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined—
But what is to prevent the members of the League, when the mandate comes to them for confirmation, from objecting to it? Our position is that they are no more prejudiced because the House of Commons agrees to do what the Government have decided upon than if the Government had done it over their heads.

Lord R. CECIL: We are asked to settle it by Act of Parliament.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as we are concerned, we are asked to settle it by Act of Parliament, but that does not preclude the right of the League of Nations to refuse to confirm the agreement if it choose. All these mandates—everyone of them—will be submitted to the League of Nations for confirmation. This is one among the others, and in my view this is an arrangement which is the best that could be carried out. I have myself no doubt that the League of Nations will agree to it, and surely the last thing the House of Commons ought
to do is to show that it has any sympathy with the kind of charge that we are influenced by purely selfish motives in refusing to confirm an agreement which has been made by the Government, and an agreement which has been come to with great difficulty, not because of any selfish interest of Great Britain, but because of the difficulty of reconciling the different interests of different parts of the British Empire. I venture to say that all this outcry about this small matter is due, I am afraid, to the belief that my Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) entertains that the Government is not sufficiently serious in its devotion to the League of Nations. I thing he is wrong. I think—indeed, I know—the League of Nations has suffered enormously by what has happened in America. I know that the only chance of it ever being useful—I suppose it is due to national prejudice—is that the British Empire should earnestly support the League as soon as it can.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is the point—when are you going to begin?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have tried to convince the House of Commons that there is nothing selfish or contrary to the principles of the League of Nations in this, and I say to the House now, that you could not make a greater mistake, either from the point of view of the effect on our Dominions, or from the point of view of creating the very impression that we want to avoid, than by refusing to carry out the Agreement into which the Government have entered.

Lord HUGH CECIL: My right hon. Friend has made, as he usually does, a very ingenious speech, and I am sure we are all anxious to agree with him that the Government are desirous of supporting the principles of the League of Nations, and that they do not in this Bill, or on any other occasion, intend to set those principles aside. But I do not think he has done sufficient justice to the plain fact that this is a Bill performing, over the head of the League of Nations, precisely the functions which the League of Nations ought to perform for itself. The League of Nations, by solemn agreement, ought to decide on this very kind of question on which this Bill decides. My right hon. Friend seemed to imply that it was urgent this Motion should be
passed at once. I do not know why a commercial agreement could not wait for a few months, but I suppose he has reasons not known to me. But, assuming that it is urgent, why could not the Council of the League of Nations be asked for their consent before the Bill was brought forward? Why was not the approbation obtained of the League of Nations, in whose name alone we are entitled to exercise any authority in the island of Nauru at all? My right hon. Friend complains that my Noble Friend has misgivings about the sincerity of the Government. It is the Government's own habitual conduct that induces such misgivings. Let the Government only act straightforwardly. They have earned, rightly or wrongly, the most lamentable reputation for want of sincerity. I have known a great many Governments, but never one with so bad a reputation for speaking the truth, and acting sincerely as the present Government.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is using strong language.

Lord H. CECIL: I am using strong language, as my right hon. Friend does. The only difference between us is that my right hon. Friend has often gone, in subsequent years, in direct opposition to the strong language he has used, but I do not think I have ever done so. However, that may be, what I want to put to my right hon. Friend is this. The speech which he addressed to this House ought to have been addressed to the League of Nations. The Government ought to have shown that it was their duty to obey the League of Nations, and to convince the League of Nations of the propriety of such an arrangement before carrying it out. However, to show whether they are sincere or insincere, will the Government insert a Clause in this Bill that it will terminate within such and such a time—a number of months—if, in the interval, the arrangements proposed under the Bill do not obtain the mandate of the League of Nations sufficiently to cover the provisions of the Bill? Will they make the ultimate operation of the Bill conditional in any form upon the approbation of the League of Nations? If words of that kind were inserted, it would remove a suspicion, which, rightly or wrongly, deservedly or undeservedly, has certainly arisen, and, though this is an extremely small matter, the suspicion is a very serious one, be-
cause, as my Noble Friend said, there is no doubt at all the British Government is suspect. It is supposed to be openly talking of their duty to the world, of their anxiety to act in the interests of the world, and yet all the time acting on the old annexationist policy, under which you take what you can, and use it to the advantage of your own people. It is difficult to disabuse the foreign public of that opinion. Here is an opportunity. If the Government will in Committee insert some words in this Bill making it conditional on the approbation of the League of Nations, that will, at any rate, show that the criticism levelled against this. Bill was an undeserved one. It really is a matter of importance that we should know that our hands are perfectly clean. My right hon. Friend says it makes no difference whether the phosphates are divided according to the terms of this agreement, or whether they are in the hands of a trading company; but, if you divide them by Act of Parliament among three parts of the British Empire, it certainly makes a great difference; and, therefore, it is exposed to precisely the sort of suspicion we are anxious to avoid. My right hon. Friend has made great profession of righteousness. Let him act up to this profession. What we want is words—not professions of faith. We do not want the perpetual recital of the creed of the League of Nations. We want an active obedience to its moral principles, and if the Government will make it clear that they are not merely persons of profession, not merely preachers of righteousness, but that they are going to carry out their faith in works, then they will accept such an Amendment in Committee, and the matter will be made clear.

Sir W. PEARCE: The Leader of the House was quite right when he said Nauru Island has always been a phosphate island, and nothing more. There are not many phosphates in the world, and this island is one of great national consequences even to us; but I can quite imagine that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand consider it is of vital consequence to them, and therefore they ask His Majesty's Government to enter into this agreement. I think His Majesty's Government have done a very wise thing, and made an exceedingly good bargain. The British Empire contains very little phosphates, and I would like to remind
the House that the agricultural industry of this country is dependent upon a regular supply of phosphates reaching this country. Most of the nations of Europe have control of phosphate deposits of their own. The United States are very wealthy in phosphates, but the British Empire is very badly off in this respect. I think the Government have rendered great service in getting an agreement by which this country, and particularly Australia and New Zealand, will benefit. When I heard that this Bill was coming up, all I concerned myself about was whether this Government had made a good or a bad bargain, I understand they have made a good bargain for the country, and to the direct benefit of agriculturists in this country, Australia and New Zealand. It never occurred to me that by any possibility the League of Nations could be dragged into such a question as this, and I do submit it is doing a very bad service to a great ideal that the first real difference of opinion in regard to the League of Nations in this House should be over this Bill. I submit the question should never have been raised. The island has only a small population, and no one would have heard of it except for these deposits. I do think the friends of the League of Nations have done a bad service in making it the object of this discussion.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has approached the subject purely from the point of view of the business man. He says, "Here is a good thing. Here is a chance of getting hold of a good thing. Why, in the name of commonsense, should we not have it?" Anything more directly athwart the whole idea of the resettlement of the world, in accordance with the principles of the League of Nations, I have never heard, and if we are going to run the future of this Empire and our duty to the rest of the world on principles of that kind, then there is nothing else for it but to return to the same old miserable business which brought about the War, from which we have scarcely yet emerged. Unless we can rise above that sort of thing, there is no hope for the world at all, and it is because of our sincere belief that this matter, small as it is, goes to the root of that principle, that I for one shall most certainly vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Let me address myself very briefly to one or two points made by the
Leader of the House. He spoke of the urgency of the matter, and said that, unless this commercial bargain is concluded, the whole thing will fall to the ground, but he himself in terms stated that this was to be subject to the subsequent decision of the League of Nations, and there you have the whole element of uncertainty in it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think any supporter of the League of Nations could say that they have the right to upset a purchase of this kind. They have the right to interfere with the administration.

Sir D. MACLEAN: But the whole point of this purchase being concluded is that it follows from a mandate properly given in the League of Nations.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I think this is so vital, that I would like to make it clear to my right hon. Friend. The two questions are quite distinct. One is the administration of territory, which the League of Nations has a perfect right to see is properly done. The other is the purchase of a trading company. I do not think that is a subject which would properly come under the League of Nations at all.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Personally, I do not admit the position taken up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House; but, supposing he is right, this Bill, with its Agreement, takes over, in terms, as the Noble Lord pointed out, under Article 1, those very duties. It says:
The administrator shall have power to make Ordinances for the peace, order, and good government of the Island, subject to the terms of this Agreement, and particularly (but so as not to limit the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Article) to provide for the education of children on the Island, to establish and maintain the necessary police force, and to establish and appoint courts and magistrates with civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Is there any likelihood of the League, faced with this thing done, interfering at all with the accomplished fact? There is no likelihood in the least degree. After all, it is not words that count. It is things done that count, and in the court of justice of the world, we, the leading trustee under the League of Nations, in our first act will be faced with the fact that we have, for commercial reasons, taken a position which, I think, is in flagrant violation of the Articles of the Treaty solemnly concluded at Versailles.
With all the earnestness of which I am capable I would urge upon the Government, even now, to retrace this false step. Wherever you go the enemies of this country are manifold. There are large and powerful bodies throughout the world eager for any opportunity to misrepresent this country. We have not done well out of the war. This country has suffered in life and treasure in equal proportion to anyone else. [HON. MEMBERS: "More! "] When I say we are equal to France I am putting it very high. Let us, however, not be afraid of owning up that we have made a mistake in regard to this matter. It is small, but its proportions will loom in the future in a degree which we have no idea at present. See how it is going to be seized upon in the United States in the election, in France, and Italy, and Belgium, and all round. With the greatest possible earnestness I urge on the Government to keep in mind the wider issue, not the mere commercial issue of pounds, shillings and pence; to pause and give an opportunity for this thing to be considered with care, so that the precedent which we set up shall be for the wider issues of the world, which are deeply involved.

Mr. STEWART: I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse. I regret, as one who is a well-wisher of the League of Nations, that this matter had been chosen on which to bring them in. I do not myself see why the League of Nations should come into this matter at all. We hear complaints about people not carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. According to this Bill, we have received a mandate from the Allies, and I hope it will not be levelled at us that we are raising difficulties in putting through the ordinary business of the Treaty. The cession of this island is laid down as one of the stipulations of the Treaty, and I think the House will be well-advised to pass this Bill without delay. It appears there is some value attached to this island; but it must be remembered that the Ocean Company in 1902 acquired all the guiana interests of the island. We have had our hands on the supplies before, and we are only confirming by Act of Parliament what we owned before. The thing the House ought to consider is whether or not it is right to take this island, or to retain it, and whether we are paying too much for
what we are getting. The League of Nations would be well-advised to bear in mind that it is not yet a properly constituted strong body. We understood that the League was the creation of President Wilson. The Noble Lord says it was not. At any rate, it seems plain that America thinks so little of the League of Nations that they have given it very cold support, and we shall not know what their attitude is until the Presidential election is over; and we cannot wait for these phosphates till then. It is also a pity that a small domestic matter of this sort, approved by the Council of the British Empire, should have been brought into the purview of the League of Nations. If it is going to claim jurisdiction of this sort, it would appear that we will be unable to move hand or foot until this international body has settled these domestic points. If that is its attitude, it will gain more opponents than friends.
As to this particular island, it may or may not fulfil all the aspirations and great anticipations that are entertained about it. However, we have got it, and if we develop it successfully under the mandate there will be the satisfaction that at least we have got something from Germany which will help us to pay the millions of debt now upon us. The Germans took this island in the 'eighties. It was re taken by a British ship in September, 1914. It has been handed over to us by the Peace Treaty, and I cannot see any reason why we should not proceed with its development. As the hon. Member for Limehouse truly said, the Agricultural Bill discussed yesterday shows the extreme necessity for doing everything we possibly can to increase our food supplies. The provisions of the Bill allow the sale of any surplus which may be over from the wants of this country, Australia and New Zealand, and I think that removes the accusation of extreme protection and greed which have been rather loosely hurled at us. The price of the company is one upon which it is difficult to give an expression of opinion. I only hope the bargain has been well-considered, and that we are not paying too much for what we are getting. The Germans have had something to do with that part of the world. I hope that if there are any German shareholders in the Phosphate Company that the money paid for their shares will be handed over to the Public Trustee
to be disposed of for the benefit of creditors here, and to see that Germany carries out her post-war engagements. I thought this Bill would go through without any opposition until I heard the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby Gore). He put his case very well. He rather led the way to certain points which may be arranged in Committee. Again I say that I think it would be well if the League of Nations had not been made such a point in this matter. The natives of the country number about 1780. They wish to remain under us. Their condition of life will probably be happier and better under the British Government than it was under their former masters. There are also the Dominions to consider, and their susceptibilities should be very carefully considered. I earnestly hope the House will not in this matter run any risk of quarrelling with the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, and will have no hesitation in passing this Bill.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: There are one or two questions I should very much like to ask. In these Pacific Islands phosphates have been worked for many years. I understand this phosphate company was a British company. To my knowledge hundreds of thousands of tons have been shipped, and the company has been a very successful one. I believe they are capable of carrying on the trade which they inaugurated, and developing it for a great many years to come. One of the greatest difficulties, so far as the shipment to this country is concerned, has been, and always will be, the geographical position of the island. It makes the transport so enormously high that the company has not been able to compete in this country with the Florida phosphates which are something of the same quality, and certainly not with the phosphates which we get from North Africa. Why is the company going to be superseded and the conduct of this important industry placed in the hands of Government officials, who know absolutely nothing about it, and who have not been very successful in their commercial undertakings. Why have the Government decided to buy this company up—to develop the islands, to carry on the business of this company, or what?

Mr. ACLAND: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken with some knowledge has indicated further reasons
against the acceptance of this Bill. It is perfectly clear why the Governments of Australia and New Zealand are interested in our passing this Bill, because it is suggested—it is laid down in the Bill—we are to pay 1½ millions of money to help them to buy out the company. It is also perfectly clear, from what the hon. Member has just said, that we in this country are in the position of getting no phosphates, for the freights will kill the trade. We are asked to put down this money, which it appears to me is more than equal to the whole of the paid-up capital of the company, alongside the sum to be put down by Australia and New Zealand. Of course, these countries, being fairly near, will get their phosphates cheaper, and we shall get no phosphates at all. The hon. Gentleman also paid a tribute to the business-like ability and enterprise of the company. Why not leave the company to carry out their business, at any rate, for the present. It is a going concern, and there are big offices at Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and at the various ports of New Zealand, with directors and managers there. Surely, it would be better at the present time, and until this matter can be fully laid before the League of Nations, discussed, and determined by them, not to supersede the company which is carrying on the trade in phosphate perfectly satisfactorily. The British company, no doubt, will be very glad to sell to Australia and New Zealand under quite reasonable terms, which the people of these countries will be perfectly willing to pay. There will be an additional reason at a time like this: that we shall not have to pay out the million and a half, that we shall keep that here—and goodness knows we want all the money we have got—not pay it into an enterprise which clearly, on the report of those who really know the details, is not going to give us any fertilisers other than what we could get from nearer home.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. PALMER: The Debate we have had this afternoon, I feel, puts before us this truth: that either the League of Nations is a farce or it is a fact. I think that the attitude which the Government has pursued shows that they are rather inclined to the view that it is not yet a fact. Whether it is a farce I do not
say; but I entirely disagree with the strong line taken up by certain hon. Members on this side of the House in suggesting that the object of the Government is greed and a purely commercial purpose. Anyone who understood how before the War Germany had secured a lien on some of the great products necessary for the British Empire, and how at the time we found ourselves in tremendous difficulties because of the German lien on those products, will realise, I feel, that whatever mistake the Government is making, they are making it from the best intentions. This is not a purely commercial transaction. It is a great Imperial transaction. Having listened to the Debate very carefully, I have to agree with the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) on the question of the League of Nations. I do honestly feel that his contention to-day is absolutely unanswerable. Either the country has to believe in the League of Nations and accept the position which, in spite of his statement to-day, I believe was forced upon us by America, which has now left us in the lurch—either we are to stand by the word of the British Government at the Versailles Conference, and accept the League of Nations as a fact, or be honest and say it is utterly impossible to allow any League to interfere with the course of progress of the British Empire and we will have no part or lot in it. I regard this Debate from two points of view. Firstly, there is the question of our sincerity in the matter of the League of Nations, and I should like us to declare that it is inimical to the true progress and strength of the British Empire that we should be interfered with in any transactions we undertake in any part of the world. My second point is as to the character of this agreement. I think we ought to examine this agreement very carefully to see if we are getting our money's worth, and to ascertain whether it would not be better for private enterprise to carry on this industry and leave the Government to look after matters which really do concern us. I can see the genesis of this Bill and I think it does great credit to Mr. Hughes and the Prime Minister. I think Mr. Hughes was the finest man in the War in standing up against Germany, and turning out every German interest in his own country, where they placed on the Statute Book enactments which render it
utterly impossible that Germany will ever again get her claws into those great industries and productive mines which are so necessary for the vitality of this country; and he has made certain that never again shall a great property like this, which is so vital to our agriculture, be exploited in the interests of Germany. I believe that it still would be possible to leave this company to work its commercial side and to make certain that the Imperial Government shall have a lien on the products of this company. If we are going on with this Bill, I confess that I am rather divided in my mind. On the matter of the League of Nations, I think it is a violation of the Covenant, but on the ground of Imperial needs and the necessity for procuring this tremendous and vital product, I shall be inclined to support the Government.

Mr. BENNETT: I think it is possible that this Bill may be made more acceptable, but if no assurance is given that any such Amendment as that which has been suggested will be accepted, I shall very reluctantly vote against the Government. I do not join with the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) who spoke so severely of the character of this Government for truthfulness, because I regard it as a very respectable Government, and as much given to truthfulness as those who criticise it. I do not wish to enter into a criticism of the agreement. I had a suspicion the first moment I read the agreement that in giving the mandate as it does to the British Empire, it was giving a mandate for something that does not exist as an administrative entity. The British Empire in a document of this kind seems to me a geographical rather than a legal or administrative phrase. My chief objection to the Bill is that it undertakes to do what should only have been done by the League of Nations. I am not going to join with those who have accused the Government of coldness, indifference, or even hostility to the League of Nations. The Prime Minister and other Members of the Government have put on record declarations in regard to the League of Nations which forbid all that for one moment. In taking away from the League of Nations an opportunity of functioning, if I may use that barbarous word, they have acted inimically to the League of Nations. This
was the most appropriate task they could have conferred upon the League of Nations, but it is kept out of their hands and has been undertaken by the Supreme Council. We want to know whether the Supreme Council is to go on doing work which could fitly be done by the League of Nations, and it is because this Bill legalises and justifies that error that I shall vote against the Government on this occasion if the Bill is divided upon as it stands.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I suggest that to-morrow, when we read the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who introduced this measure, we shall find in it a conclusive answer to the contention of the Leader of the House that we should get no unfair or selfish advantage as an Empire from this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member who introduced this measure said how exceedingly profitable this bargain was to the British Empire, and he told us that Australia and New Zealand would get their phosphates £1 per ton cheaper than hitherto. We were told that in 1913 the production amounted to 337,000,000 tons, and he went on to say that this could be greatly increased in the future, and that the total deposits of phosphates in the islands varied from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 tons. I think, at £1 per ton profit, £300,000,000 is not an unsubstantial gain to the British Empire through this excellent bargain.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Why not?

Mr. T. THOMSON: That is the crux of the whole thing. It is admitted that it is a good bargain, and it is because of that we say, upon this side of the House, that it is contrary to the principles underlying the League of Nations. The Leader of the House was at some pains to suggest that if we did not do this the company would be in the same position, and that we were merely taking all the powers and rights of the company. Surely that is a very specious argument. What may be perfectly right for the company to do as a commercial trading concern is an altogether different thing for a nation to do as a mandatory. I submit that the company would not do what we, as an Empire, are proposing to do under this Bill, because it would be contrary to the commercial interests of the company.
As a commercial concern the Company would sell in the best markets they could find, and at the highest price. They would not sell at cost price to Australia and New Zealand and the United Kingdom, but they would go into the open markets of the world unfettered, and get the highest prices from other nations whether they were in the League or not. It would be quite right for them to do so. It is altogether one thing for a Company to be out making the greatest profits and another thing altogether for a mandatory Power trading as a trustee to seek to advantage itself at the expense of the rest of the world. I suggest that although the purchase contract might not be reviewable by the League of Nations, yet the conditions of the sale stipulating that New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom should have the sole output, if necessary, and the rest of the world should be excluded are entirely at variance and in conflict with the mandatory principle of the League of Nations.
Except with the unanimous consent of the three Commissioners, they cannot sell or supply any phosphates to any country or place other than the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand. If Australia objects to any of the phosphates being sold to any other country beyond these three it does not matter what the British Government desires, it cannot be done, and we are at the mercy of the veto of any one of these three Powers. The hon. Member for Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) will admit, I think, that that is contrary to the League of Nations under which equal opportunities for trade and commerce must be open to all members of the League. In the eyes of some hon. Members this may be good business, but is it good morality? Surely in the past the bulk of the wars have been the outcome of commercial bargains in these outlying posts of the Empire, and if we are not careful in this matter the lesson we have learned during the last War will be entirely forgotten, if we are going to begin now attempting to grab here and grab there certain reserves of natural deposits which should be shared equally by the world at large.
The Leader of the House suggested that this matter might go to the League of Nations, but is there anyone who believes in the League of Nations who
think that it would be a fair start to submit to it a Bill such as this, of which we had approved, and suggesting that they should reverse the findings of these three countries? If you want to condemn the League from the very first you could not take a more effective step than he suggests, that they should reverse the findings of the British Empire. I submit that there is a vital principle behind this. Many of us who took part in recruiting during the War and who fought overseas believed that we were in for this War with clean hands, and that we were not anxious to secure any material benefit, and yet we have had hon. Members supporting this agreement because it is good business.
The hon. Baronet opposite said that surely the blood and treasure we have spent overseas entitled us to some gain. I repudiate that contention with all the feeling I have. Surely we did not go into the War for any commercial gain whatsoever, and we had better make a huge sacrifice rather than the rest of the world should be able to point to us the finger of scorn, and say that England was not disinterested and did not go into the War to save Belgium, but that she went into it for what she could get for ourselves. Whether the Government intended it or not, outside this House the feeling of the country will be that we are seeking to acquire something that we will not allow other nations to have, and that we are conserving for the British Empire what should be shared by the whole world. I ask, is it worth while running all this risk? The urgency of the question is not so great. It has been suggested that this agreement should be passed because we cannot wait for the phosphates, but surely the company can carry on the same way for the next 12 months. Let us wait until the League of Nations is a reality and until they have had an opportunity of considering this agreement. Let us wait not only for 12 months, but two years, if necessary. Let the company carry on. We shall get the phosphates, and so will Australia and New Zealand, but do not run the risk of jeopardising the whole welfare of the League of Nations, which some of us think is the only thing worth living for and worth fighting for.

Colonel GREIG: It seems to me that the friends of the League of Nations have done their cause a great disservice
by the action they have taken, because it leaves the impression that they are willing to make the League a weapon of Party warfare. What was the argument of the hon. Member who has just sat down? It was that a British company, vested with the administration of commercial rights, should not carry on without the intervention of the League of Nations. It is pretty clear that this is a good bargain for the British Empire, and without this Bill you would have every speculator throughout the world intent on getting the British company to sell its concessions at a higher price. The argument we have heard to-day leads to this, that on a British concession of this kind the dividends are to be distributed all over the world and the rights of the company are to be put up to auction and handed over to the highest bidder. The whole position is ridiculous. This company, a British company, has a full right to sell its produce where it likes. The United Kingdom and the two Colonies most interested in the produce of the island come forward and say to the company, "you have two sets of rights, commercial and administrative. We will buy your commercial rights and pay a certain amount for them, while as to your administrative duties, we are quite willing to take them over or to submit them to the League of Nations. But the commercial rights we will arrange to buy from you amongst ourselves." There is no harm, surely, in such an arrangement. What wrong can there be in it? Who is to be the administrator under this agreement? It is the Commonwealth of Australia, the most democratic of all our Colonies, run in part by the Labour party. What better administrator could be found? The whole thing comes back to this, if the suggestion now made is given effect to, the impression will get abroad that the League of Nations, instead of being an instrument for good, will be reduced to a mere weapon of Party warfare between contending factions. It is in order to cover the retreat of the Front Opposition Bench that we have had all this demonstration about the League of Nations.

Mr. CLYNES: I have not been able to follow the Debate all through, but I rise to associate my hon. Friends on this side of the House with those who oppose the action of the Government in relation
to this Bill. So far as this Bill permits the Governments concerned to acquire property for national use, we support it. So far as it prevents the free sale of property, we oppose it. So far as it establishes a monopoly which ultimately is not likely to be for the good of the countries acquiring it, we oppose this Bill, and we oppose it most of all because of the spirit in which it has been conceived. Clearly, it is a spirt of sharing in a very limited circle certain spoils of the War. That is the aspect in which the Bill will be viewed by the outside public. It is a real pity that the subject of the League of Nations has to be discussed in relation to a Bill of this kind. When we are told we are doing a real disservice to the League and its prospects by bringing forward the professions of the League, the answer is that, as far as this Covenant has been made, and so far as we have the terms of the Treaty of the League of Nations before us, it is the business of the Government to conform to those terms and not to ignore them. In this instance they are ignoring them. The powers the Government take in this Bill are not acquired through the League of Nations as they ought to be, but they are acquired through Allied Powers. There has been no answer, so far, to that unanswerable point which has been presented in the course of this Debate. Our objection to the Bill is not that it hands over enormous powers to them administratively, for that is inevitable in the nature of things in such a business as this, but we are entitled to complain that there is no provision in this Bill by which the conduct of the administrator can ever be called in question either in this House or in any one of the other Parliaments concerned in this matter. The Government have not given, so far as I have heard, the slightest reply to the central objection levelled against their action. That central objection is that they have completely set aside the provisions of the Treaty of the League of Nations, and have acquired their powers from other sources. I ask them to reflect on the harmful international effect of an attitude such as that. It will be said that this is an instance of British commercial selfishness; that we are acquiring these properties for purely business reasons and that that is not the spirit in which we should act. I hope some response will be made to that central objection, and that we shall be permitted to discuss the
greater question of the League of Nations in the future free from the taint of business interests.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I want to make two or three suggestions in regard to the somewhat unprofitable position in which we find ourselves. This Bill proposes a commercial transaction. It suggests that, in conjunction with New Zealand and Australia, we should buy up the undertaking of a certain company. To that particular proposal, except that it may be unprofitable, I have heard no objection raised in this country. But there is a strong element in this House obsessed with the idea of the League of Nations, and they think that the provision in the Bill for the administration for this island is an affront to that at present nebulous and non-existent body. I venture to suggest to the Minister in charge that with a view to removing the difficulty expressed in some quarters he should confine the measure to the acquisition of the undertaking of the phosphates company, and leave the question of the administration of the island to be determined either by Parliament or by the League of Nations within a given period. That would make it a purely commercial transaction, and I am delighted to think that to that idea the apostles of the League see no objection. So far as the commercial part of the transaction is concerned, I am amazed to find how little some hon. Members have learned as a result of this War.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hear, Hear!

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I was not referring particularly to the hon. and gallant Member. If we do not buy the undertaking of this company, if we stand by for two or three years, as suggested by one hon. Member behind me, what is to prevent Germany buying it over our heads? I am one of those who do not believe in the broken back of Germany. I should not be surprised to find her representatives out there outbidding us for this undertaking. She had it, I believe, in days gone by.
It will be a poor consolation to people who may be clamouring for bread in two years' time, because we have not had the fertilisers necessary to produce the corn; it will, I say, be poor consolation
to those people to be told "we have the League of Nations; put that into your mouths and swallow it." It is incredible that hon. Members have not yet learned the importance of securing an undertaking of this kind while we have the opportunity, whether or not we also secure the administration of the island. We are I understand, under the financial arrangements of the Bill, to find a million and a half sterling, and Australia and New Zealand are to find the other million and a half. Am I wrong in thinking that these two branches of the British Empire are at present indebted to us in considerable sums? I am sure they are, and I therefore say let it be a matter of bookkeeping; let us credit them with a million and a half. I do not think the leaders of the Labour party can see anything immoderate in a proposal of that kind. Subject to these observations I shall certainly vote for the Bill if only as a necessary reminder to America and other countries that we intend to act promptly where the interests of the Empire demand. It is not a question of the spoils of war, because we do not pay for spoils, we do not buy them, and in this case we are going to give a fair market price for this undertaking, because it is good business and because it is a sound Empire policy to secure it—I shall vote for this Bill as a reminder to the world at large that when the interests of the British Empire demand immediate action will be taken, and we intend to take it without waiting for the appearance on the scene of this nebulous, non-existent League of Nations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I greatly prefer the attitude of the hon. Member who last spoke to that of the Government. It is more honest and straightforward, and I believe the people of the country will also prefer it. This island was conquered by Australia at the very beginning of the War. It was conquered for strategical reasons. We wish to prevent it being used as a base for German shipping. I believe Australia claims it for economic reasons. They want to get the phosphate for the development of their agriculture. It is a small island; there are very few inhabitants on it, and surely we can come to some arrangement to make it over to Australia with proper safeguards for ourselves and without any talk of mandates or of the-League of Nations, or of anything else.
I want to use plain language. This hypocrisy, this harmonium thumping, this waving of the Bible in connection with commercial matters is absolutely nauseous to me. We have seized the island for strategical reasons; we propose to keep it because its deposits of phosphates are valuable. I admired the speech of the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill. He told us the number of millions of tons of phosphates it was hoped would be got from the island. I think he said that the highest estimate was 300,000,000 of tons of phosphates a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Colonel WILSON: I mentioned that as a German estimate, but I said I did not put it any higher than the report given to the New Zealand Government by the Board of Agriculture of New Zealand. That was from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 tons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said that 300,000,000 tons was the highest estimate the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. We are told that before the War most of this went in any case to Germany. Where do the natural needs of Australia and New Zealand come in? That rather puzzles me. It is agreed that we want this and mean to keep it. If that is so, what becomes of this one-half paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant. The Lord Privy Seal has not dealt with that, and if the learned Attorney-General is going to reply, I should be glad to hear what his extremely acute legal mind can make of it. Article 22 has been read several times by hon. and right hon. Gentleman who have taken part in the Debate, and I only want to read the last three lines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it as read."] No, this has not been stressed. It says that the Mandatories of territories
will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
How do we get over that in this case? We are not treating this as a spoil of war, which would be much more honest. We are talking about its not being contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations, but how does the Government get over that? When my hon. Friend, the Member for South Hackney says that the League of Nations is a non-existent body, I do not think he is well-informed. The Council of the League of Nations was sitting this morning, and has been sitting
for three days. It has arrived at some very important decisions, and I am surprised the hon. Member has not made himself aware of them. Perhaps the reason is that the League of Nations is smothered in every way. The Government take no steps to give publicity to its findings, and, therefore, I am not surprised that hon. Members talk about it as a non-existent body. In law, however, and according to the Treaty which we have signed and guaranteed, it does exist very much; it is fully established. Of course, if we like to go right in the face of it in this matter, well and good; but how can we then turn to other nations and complain if, in the future, they in any way encroach on our interests through their mandate? We were able, in the past, for example, to make some protest to the Japanese Government when they created a monopoly in camphor in Formosa after the Chino-Japanese War. We were not successful then, but we cannot even make a protest now, if they can turn to this Bill and say—it is a small question, but it is a precedent, the first step which counts—"Here you have this island, conquered, as other territories have been, and you are going to confine its products to these three nations alone." Even the private company had no powers of that sort. Under this Bill the phosphates go to Great Britain, to Australia, and to New Zealand, but these countries are not allowed to re-export, and that is the point. Those are powers which no private company ever had. I hope the House is going to defeat this Bill, if the Government does not give the guarantees for which we ask. This is not a question merely of pounds, shillings and pence. The hon. Member who last spoke said that some of us have learned little from the War. I cheered that. Some of us have learned precious little from the War. I myself may have learned but little, but I have learned, and many millions of people who have suffered from the War have learned also, that war is a thing at all costs to be avoided. One of the most fruitful causes of war in the past has been the attempt to get monopolies, and, because this is perpetuating that very thing, I think the House should reject it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 77.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[6.35 P.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Pearce, Sir William


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Percy, Charles


Atkey, A. R.
Gregory, Holman
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Greig, Colonel James William
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.


Baird, John Lawrence
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Hailwood, Augustine
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Preston, W. R.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hanna, George Boyle
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Ramsden, G. T.


Barrand, A. R.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D.


Bigland, Alfred
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rendall, Athelstan


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hills, Major John Waller
Renwick, George


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hinds, John
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Seager, Sir William


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jesson, C.
Simm, M. T.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanton, Charles B.


Casey, T. W.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Kidd, James
Stevens, Marshall


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stewart, Gershom


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Clough, Robert
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Terrell, George (Wilts., Chippenham)


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Lynn, R. J.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Courthope, Major George L.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Macmaster, Donald
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Turton, E. R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Maddocks, Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Dawes, Commander
Middlebrook, Sir William
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Mitchell, William Lane
Whitla, Sir William


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Moles, Thomas
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Donald, Thompson
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Duncannon, Viscount
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Mount, William Arthur
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Edge, Captain William
Murchison, C. K.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wolmer, Viscount


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Neal, Arthur
Woolcock, William James U.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fildes, Henry
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Nield, Sir Herbert
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Forrest, Walter
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Oman, Charles William C.
Younger, Sir George


Gange, E. Stanley
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilbert, James Daniel
Parker, James
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)



Gould, James C.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Briant, Frank
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bromfield, William
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)




Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Royce, William Stapleton


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lawson, John J.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Swan, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hancock, John George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkie, Alexander


Hayward, Major Evan
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Hirst, G. H. (York, Wentworth)
Rae, H. Norman
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hogge, James Myles
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Johnstone, Joseph
Robertson, John



Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Mr. Mosley.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of

the Whole House."—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 218.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[6.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Robertson, John


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hancock, John George
Royce, William Stapleton


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayward, Major Evan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Swan, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilkie, Alexander


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Dr. Murray.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campbell, J. D. G.
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Casey, T. W.
Fildes, Henry


Atkey, A. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Chadwick, Sir Robert
Forrest, Walter


Baird, John Lawrence
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A. (Birm. W.)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gange, E. Stanley


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clough, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilbert, James Daniel


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Glyn, Major Ralph


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cope, Major Wm.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Barnston, Major Harry
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry


Barrand, A. R.
Courthope, Major George L.
Greig, Colonel James William


Bell, Lieut. Co. W C. H. (Devizes)
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hallwood, Augustine


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hanna, George Boyle


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin


Berwick, Major G. O.
Dawes, Commander
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Britton, G. B.
Duncannon, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edge, Captain William
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Brown, Captain D. C.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hills, Major John Waller


Hinds, John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stanton, Charles B.


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stewart, Gershom


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Hurd, Percy A.
Oman, Charles William C.
Sutherland, Sir William


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Jephcott, A. R.
Parker, James
Taylor, J.


Jesson, C.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Johnstone, Joseph
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pearce, Sir William
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Percy, Charles
Townley, Maximilian G.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perkins, Walter Frank
Tryon, Major George Clement


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Turton, E. R.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Waddington, R.


Lister, Sir J. Ashton
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lynn, R. J.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Purchase, H. G.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Rae, H. Norman
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


M'Guffin, Samuel
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Whitla, Sir William


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Macmaster, Donald
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Reld, D. D.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Renwick, George
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Maddocks, Henry
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wolmer, Viscount


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Middlebrook, Sir William
Rodger, A. K.
Wood, Major S. Hill-(High Peak)


Mitchell, William Lane
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moles, Thomas
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Morison, Thomas Brash
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Younger, Sir George


Mount, William Arthur
Seager, Sir William



Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Simm, M. T.
Mr. Dudley Ward and Lord E Talbot.


Nall, Major Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander



Neal, Arthur
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville



Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Colonel WILSON: I beg to move,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the share of the United Kingdom of the compensation payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to confirm an agreement made on the 2nd day of July, 1919, between His Majesty's Government in London, His Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, and His Majesty's Government of the Dominion of New Zealand, in relation to the Island of Nauru and of other expenses in connection therewith.
I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what has been said on the subject of the finances of the Bill, which naturally came into the discussion on the Second Reading. A White Paper has been published dealing with the question of the payment of this money. It simply
carries out Article 14 of the agreement, under which the United Kingdom pays 42 per cent., Australia 42 per cent., and New Zealand the remaining 16 per cent. The amount of compensation payable to the Pacific Phosphate Company has been agreed at £3,500,000, together with a further sum not exceeding £39,000 in respect of compensation to certain officials of the company if their services are not retained by the Commissioners. The share of the United Kingdom in this amount is £1,486,380. The sum to be asked for also includes provision, amounting to £1,620, for legal expenses, making a total of £1,488,000. I have pointed out the urgency of getting the Second Reading and the Financial Resolution as soon as possible in order that the Bill may be sent to a Committee upstairs, and I trust the Committee will now give me the Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN: All that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done is simply to read Clauses 7 and 8 of the Paper, but I think I should like to have some more information. This country is going
to be committed to a charge of, in round figures, £1,500,000. I want to know something more about it than Clauses 7 and 8 on the White Paper. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us something about the position of the company, what its dividends have been, and whether this £1,500,000 that we are going to pay is, on the figures which he can give us, a good and proper investment for the country to make? That is the sort of thing an ordinary business man would like to know. Clauses 7 and 8 are of an indefinite character, giving no information at all, other than that the price is to be £3,500,000, and our share of it is to be £1,500,000. I hope that information will be forthcoming. Then with regard to the £39,000 in respect of compensation to certain officials of the company, what dues that mean? How many of them are there, and what are the conditions under which the sum is to be paid if their services are not retained by the Commissioners? Are they to be pensioned, or is it to be a lump sum, or how is the thing to be done? If my hon. Friend gives us some information on that point that satisfies us that this is on ordinary business lines, we will give him his Resolution.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to know whether there are any investors other than British subjects who hold shares in this phosphate company. This matter was raised by one hon. Member in the Debate on the Second Reading. Before we compensate the shareholders we want to know whether they are enemy nationals. It is a very important point which ought to be made clear. I take the view that private property even of enemy nationals should be compensated in these colonies abroad. It is a totally new departure in warfare, at any rate for the last five or six centuries, that we should not compensate the private property of enemy nationals. Are we making an exception in the case of this company? This company got a licence from the German Government to work the phosphates there, and I should be very surprised to hear that there were not many German shareholders in the company. I should also be surprised to hear that there were not some conditions laid down that a certain portion of the shares should be held by German subjects, or possibly by the German Government. I would point to the analogous
case of the Persian Oil Company in which our Government controlled a certain number of shares. Had the German Government any such interest in this company? The whole principle of the compensation of foreign shareholders in undertakings that are nationalised is of great importance in regard to several countries at the present time. I will only mention Austria. In Austria the Socialist party happens to have a majority in the Austrian Reichsrath, and they are proposing to nationalise certain undertakings. In those undertakings there are foreign shareholders, and it is laid down that those foreign shareholders can claim the amount of their holdings from the Austrian Government at par, whereas on the market those shares are hardly worth the paper on which they are written. That being the case, we should proceed very warily in this matter. There has been a great deal of investment in public companies, registered and unregistered, by the Government in recent years, and this practice is very much on the increase. I asked for a return some months ago of those investments. I asked for it in March, and judging from the time it has taken the Treasury to produce the Return, it leads me to believe that this sort of investment and the putting up of public money in public companies has been carried on to a much greater extent than hon. Members know. Under the circumstances it is only right that we should have further details.

Colonel WILSON: I thought I had dealt at some length with the position of this company, and with its capital, and that I had justified the amount of money which the Government propose to pay. In answer to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), I may say that the original Pacific Phosphate Company was registered on the 18th April, 1902, with a capital of £250,000, of which £200,000 was allotted to the Pacific Islands Company, which was the forerunner of the Pacific Phosphate Company. The capital was increased to £500,000 in 1909, to £875,000 in 1910, to £975,000 in 1912, and in 1914 the authorised capital was increased to £1,200,000. That consisted of ordinary fully paid-up shares, with the exception of £375,000 £1 shares, of which 10s. only had been paid, and 225,000 preference shares which had not been called up. The hon. Gentleman asked whether any
of these shares were held by the enemy. There were some holdings by Germans, but those holdings were sold by the Public Trustee in 1917.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I quite understand that, but are we paying the company on account of those shares? Is the amount that was realised from the sale by the Public Trustee being taken into consideration before we pay this compensation?

Colonel WILSON: They were sold by the Public Trustee and bought by British people. Those people own the shares now, and they will get compensation when payment is made to the company. In regard to £39,000 payable in respect of compensation to certain officials of the company, that is shown in the agreement between the three Governments and the Pacific Phosphate Company. Copies of this agreement are in the library for hon. Members to see. Clause 11 of the agreement deals with the particular point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
The Governments shall on or before the first day of September, 1920, pay to the company for and on behalf of the senior members of the staff of the company in London, Australia, and New Zealand whose names are specialised in the Third Schedule hereto, such amounts as compensation for their loss of office as shall be determined in each case by the Governments and the company, in the event of no mutual arrangements being made respectively for their employment by the Governments, provided, however, that the total amount payable by the Governments as compensation hereunder shall in no event exceed the sum of £39,000.
The present nominal market value of the shares shows that the Government were making by no means a bad bargain in taking over the undertaking at the price of £3,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman asked what dividends the company had paid. Before the War on its nominal capital of £1,200,000 it paid anything between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. During the War owing to reduced shipments it has not paid as large a dividend, but now that tonnage is becoming available there is no reason why the same dividend should not be paid on the authorised capital.

Lord R. CECIL: I suppose the Government have considered the effect of this kind of commitment on our general credit. This may be a good investment or it may
be a bad investment, but the mere fact that we have to raise £3,500,000 more now—

Colonel WILSON: Not £3,500,000—£1,500,000.

Lord R. CECIL: That will, of course, be an additional difficulty on the top of the existing difficulties in the raising of money. As to the financial soundness of the transaction, I do not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. He says there is no reason why we should not make the same dividends on this transaction as before.

Colonel WILSON: The Noble Lord must have misunderstood me. I said there is no reason why the same dividends should not be payable now as before on the authorised capital.

Sir A. FELL: The same profits will be made.

Lord R. CECIL: Would the same profits be made? I do not understand that they would. The phosphate has not to be sold in the open market. It is to be sold principally to the British Government, the New Zealand Government, and the Australian Government. The sale will be restricted. Only these people can buy in the first instance, and until they have exercised their right of purchase it cannot be sold to anybody else. They can buy at any price they like. I do not see how under any circumstances you are going to make a large profit. I may be wrong. These Governments will buy the phosphate at their own price, and unless the Government are going to profiteer I do not see how you are to make large profits. Of course, if they are going to buy the phosphate and then resell it to the agricultural community at an immense profit they may make a large sum of money, but I do not think that would be a very desirable course for the Government to pursue. If they are going to resell it to the agricultural community at the price at which they have bought it, with some small addition for expenses, it is quite evident they will not make a very profitable business. I do not see under any circumstances that they are going to make a very profitable business of it. Unless the management is a good deal better than the Government management of these things usually is, the probability is that there will be a very considerable
loss. In these circumstances, at the present time, to ask the House suddenly, in order to carry out a transaction which I forbear at this stage to characterise further, to enter upon considerable obligations is hard to reconcile with the Government's oft repeated love of economy. The Government's love of economy is very much their love of the League of Nations. It consists of making eloquent speeches on the subject. Unless there is a much better explanation of this transaction I shall vote against it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not satisfied with the explanation about the shares. At what price were these shares sold by the Public Trustee during the War, and at what price are the shareholders to be compensated? I very much object to paying money to people who happen to have made a lucky speculation in a business of this sort. If for no other reason, I should vote against the Resolution. The Lord Privy Seal has told us that this whole business is going to be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for consideration. He told us that with his hand on his heart. In that case, they may upset the whole arrangement. If they do so, I hope the Government will accept it in good grace. I would like to have the whole thing upset. Without having got any understanding from the League of Nations in full session, or from the Council of the League of Nations, without which I do not think the mandate would be legal, we are asked for a very considerable sum of money, which will have to be borrowed. I do not think it is a businesslike transaction or in any way worthy of our acceptance.

Captain W. BENN: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us on what Vote it is proposed to pay this sum of money? Is there to be a supplementary Vote? It cannot be included in the existing Votes. When will it come up for discussion?

Colonel WILSON: Without further inquiry, I do not think I can answer the hon. and gallant Member with certainty; but as this is a Colonial Office matter, I presume it will come under the Colonial Office Vote.

Captain BENN: As a supplementary estimate.

Colonel WILSON: In regard to the point made by the Noble Lord, I do not know whether he was in the House when I referred to Article 11, which states that
phosphates shall be supplied to the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand at the same f.o.b. price, to be fixed by the Commissioners on a basis which will cover working expenses, cost of management, contribution to administrative expenses, interest on capital, and a sinking fund for the redemption of capital.
Under that Article phosphate can only be sold at a price which, after all administration and working expenses and cost of management, etc., are paid, will also pay interest on capital and sinking fund.

Lord R. CECIL: What interest on capital?

Colonel WILSON: That would be arranged between the three Governments concerned. Naturally, it would be a commercial rate of interest. As to the price at which enemy shares were sold, I cannot give the information without further inquiry, but I will endeavour to get it. I must take exception to one thing which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull said about the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. As I understood my right hon. Friend, and I think correctly, the question of this transaction between the three Governments was entirely distinct from any other question which might arise as to the mandate under the League of Nations. This is a purely commercial transaction between the Phosphate Company and the three Governments concerned. Whatever happens, I cannot see that the League of Nations has any right to interfere with this particular transaction, which is purely a domestic question between the company and the Governments concerned.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The League of Nations may object with the whole of the phosphate of this island being distributed exclusively to three parts of the British Empire.

Question put,

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206: Noes, 62.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies, not exceeding two, should be filled in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910.
This Motion is founded, as hon. Members are aware, upon the Act of 1910. That Act, which became law in the month of July in that year, has been very much misrepresented and misunderstood, and I should like to say a word upon its history and effects. That Act is commonly described as authorising the appointment of two additional judges of the High Court, that is, two judges over and above those whose appointment was sanctioned by the Judicature Acts from 1873 to 1902; but it is very important to remember the proviso which is contained in that Act. It by no means appointed or gave power to appoint two additional judges of the King's Bench Division by permanent appointment. What it provided was that after the appointment of those two judges, the Crown might fill any vacancy, with the condition that whenever, after the 1st August, 1911, the whole number of puisne judges in the King's Bench Division amounted to fifteen or more, a vacancy should not be filled unless and until an Address from both Houses of Parliament was presented, representing that the state of business in the King's Bench required a vacancy to be filled. As the House is no doubt aware, at the time of the passing of the Judicature Act, 1873 and 1875, the number of judges in the King's Bench Division was fifteen. They consisted of the Presidents of the then existing three divisions, together with twelve puisne judges.
After the consolidation which was brought about by the Judicature Acts, the number remained the same, but the judges became somewhat different. There remained the Lord Chief Justice of England and 14 puisne judges. More than thirty years after, that total of fifteen was increased by one, in the year 1907, when a further judge was appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1876, and from that time forth there were in the King's Bench Division, the Lord Chief Justice of England and 15 puisne judges. That was the state of affairs at the time of the passing of the Act of 1910. That Act provides for this increase of the number from 15 to 17, but it made the provision subject to the very important restriction which I have already mentioned. It is true that under the provisions of that Act it was possible to appoint two more judges, so that the number was immediately brought up from 15 to 17, but from that time forward there was an automatic return, in consequence of retirement, to the previous number. When one of these judges or any of the puisne judges died or retired, his place was not filled by another. The number was to return automatically to 15, and not again would a vacancy be filled, at a time when the puisne judges numbered 15 or more, without an address from both Houses of Parliament. In other words, the adding to the strength of the judiciary in the King's Bench Division provided by the Act of 1910, was temporarily evanescent and it left future control of the matter in the hands of Parliament.
There followed what was bound to follow. As deaths, or retirements from other causes, took place, the number came back to what it was before the passing of the Act. That process had been completed in 1914 before the outbreak of the War, and it is under provisions of that Act that the present Motion is made. The access of strength which this Motion suggests will again be of that temporary character. If this address be presented it will be possible now to appoint two more judges in the King's Bench Division, but it will not be possible to fill up the next two vacancies, or any vacancies, so long as 15 judges or more remain, without an address from
the two Houses. How many years it will take to get back automatically to the number 15 I cannot, of course, conjecture, but it is obvious that in the normal course of life it cannot be a long period. I should like the House to consider what was the state of business in the King's Bench Division during the period preceding the passing of the Act of 1910. I will give the figures showing the number of causes standing for trial in the King's Bench Division in the three sitting which preceded the appointment under that Act. The number in the Hilary term was 701; in the Easter term it was 650; and in the Trinity term 598. In other words, the numbers were large in themselves, and there was not such a diminution as one would have hoped for as the legal year passed. I ask the House to contrast those figures, which exhibited the congestion in the King's Bench Division in 1910, with the figures for the corresponding sittings of this year. In Hilary term of this year the number of causes standing for trial was 955, compared with 701; in Easter term it was 895 compared with 650; and in Trinity term the figure was 689 compared with 598 in 1910. The case is even stronger than that, because last Friday—up to then my figures are given—that number of 689 in Trinity term had become 709. In other words, it is a fact that since the War, there has been a very considerable increase of common-law cases. There is another very important fact.

Sir J. BUTCHER: How much of the congestion of business that now exists is due to the increase in the number of divorce cases alone?

Sir G. HEWART: That is the very point to which I was coming. It is the practice for the King's Bench Division to lend, in case of need, one judge or two judges to help to cope with the work of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. For a considerable time past that Division, for the purpose of this divorce business, has had the services sometimes of one, and for a long period, of two of the King's Bench Division judges. I should like to give a few figures showing the state of business in that Division at present and during the time preceding the Act of 1910. In Hilary term of 1910 the number of
petitions standing for trial in the Probate and Divorce Division was 295. In Hilary term of this year the number was 1,544. In Easter term of 1910 the number of petitions was 141; the figure that compares with that for Easter term of this year is 1,388. By Trinity term in 1910 the number of petitions was 228, and in Trinity term of this year the number was 1,509, and up to last Friday that figure had increased to 1,751. In other words, there has been an increase of 242 petitions in the first eleven days of the term. It may be said that that is a state of affairs which is due to the War, and that it is likely to pass away as soon as the effects of the War have been remedied. That is by no means the whole of the matter. The increase in the number of petitions for divorce is in no small measure due to the fact that facilities were granted to poor persons enabling them, and, if I may say so, most properly enabling them, to obtain divorce in suitable cases. How far one may look forward in the near future to a diminution in the number of petitions rendered possible by that cause I am quite unable to say.
What is apparent is that there is at the present time in the King's Bench Division a very great congestion of business and a far greater congestion than that with which the House had to deal in 1910. More than that, there is in the Divorce Court a far greater call for assistance from the King's Bench Division than there was in 1910. During the War, as the House knows, there has been a considerable number of prize cases. They have gone to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and have occupied no small part of the time of the learned President of that Division. For a considerable time to come there will still be a large amount of prize business. It is quite true that we have got through a great many cases and that we have come to settlements in a great many other cases, but the fact remains that for some time to come there will be a considerable volume of such business. There is a further fact, often exaggerated and misunderstood. During the War it happened sometimes that learned Judges of the King's Bench Division were taken away from their normal judicial duties to preside over inquiries which were not strictly of a judicial character. The comparative diminution of business in the Law Courts in consequence of the War rendered that
arrangement at any rate possible, however difficult. That necessity has not entirely disappeared. At present, as far as I know, the claims of that character upon the strength of the King's Bench Division are few, and, it may be thought, much nearer to the normal duties of King's Bench Division Judges than some of the duties to which reference has been made. In the first place, in consequence very largely of the representations of Members of this House, it has been decided to appoint for the further business of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission one of His Majesty's Judges to preside. Of course, in a way that is such business as might come before the King's Bench Division. Nevertheless, to impose upon a Judge in the King's Bench Division work which hitherto has been done, and one might have expected would continue to be done, by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, will not facilitate the reduction of the number of cases in the King's Bench Division. Secondly, as I think the House is aware, it is proposed to appoint one of His Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division to preside over a special tribunal which has become necessary for Ireland. It follows therefore that this very serious congestion of business cannot possibly be dealt with by the existing judicial staff.
There was passed during the period of actual hostilities a statute which in civil cases, subject to certain well-known exceptions, restricted the right of parties to demand a trial by jury. The result has been that since the passing of the Juries Act, 1918, an enormous number of cases, which, but for that Act, would have been tried by a judge with a jury, have been tried by a judge alone. That fact, while on the one hand it has spared jurors a task which otherwise would have fallen on them, has undoubtedly for the time being enormously expedited the despatch of business. Those who know the procedure of the Courts know that it takes a very great deal longer time to have a case tried before a judge with a jury than it does to have it tried by a judge alone. That state of affairs cannot indefinitely continue. That Act of Parliament, the Juries Act, 1918, must, according to its provisions, come to an end six months after the termination of the War, and I gather from representations from many quarters that there are those who think that it is highly desir-
able we should get back as soon as may be if not to the jury system in its pre-War form at any rate to a very distinct modification of the law as the emergency legislation has made it. It is in spite of those facts and in spite of the saving of time that has been rendered possible by the Juries Act of 1918 that one finds this very large increase of the numbers of cases standing for trial in the King's Bench Division. I venture to submit that the case is not only strong, but overwhelming. If it was strong in 1910, it is indescribably stronger to-day. I will end as I began by pointing out that that which is proposed is not in the smallest degree a permanent addition to the number of judges in the King's Bench, but on the contrary. There are now sixteen, one chief justice and fifteen puisne judges. When the appointment of two extra judges has been authorised the provisions of the Act of 1910 will still apply, and at any time when there are 15 or more than 15 puisne judges in the King's Bench Division it will not be competent for the Crown to fill any vacancy that may occur except after such proceeding as that in which the House is taking part to-day. I know that the question of expense must always be present to the mind of the House, but it is quite unfair to represent the emoluments of a judge as something which goes upon the debit side of the account with nothing on the other. The increased business which will be done will of course bring in additional fees, and if one could estimate the sum it would probably be found as an actual matter of pounds, shillings and pence that the total addition to net expenditure in consequence of this would be something comparatively slight. I put the proposal before the House as a temporary measure to meet an exceptional emergency, and an emergency of a very obvious and striking character.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has with his usual lucidity and persuasiveness presented his case for this Motion. Dealing with his last point first I am not at all prepared to accede to the proposal, which he put so persuasively, that the cost is relatively of a trifling character. What does it really amount to? It really amounts to putting another £10,000 on the Consolidated Fund and also the claim which these judges will have, and rightly
have, for pensions at the time when they chose to retire or retire owing to ill-health or for considerations over which they may have no control. The case which the Attorney-General has made is, I do not deny, of a character which carries considerable weight behind it. We have undoubtedly very serious congestion in the common law side of the Law Courts, and we have, of course, very abnormal conditions in the Divorce Court. The congestion in the hearing of cases on the common law side is a congestion which is by no means confined to the courts. Wherever we turn in the whole of our industrial and commercial life we find this difficulty of congestion, and people have got to make the best of it. We find it, for instance, in the railways. Litigants in these exceptional and abnormal conditions must also in my judgment make the best of it, or ought to do so. No doubt in time this congestion will be very much mitigated. What are some of the causes of the congestion in the Law Courts? My right hon. Friend dealt with the cause with which I am not myself unfamiliar, that is, the remarkable work of the judges during the War. I had the privilege of sitting with at least three of His Majesty's judges on various Committees. I know the devotion and ability with which they gave their services and also carried on at the same time an immense amount of work in the law courts. Anything I say with regard to that must be taken, of course, with a very complete appreciation of the splendid work they rendered during the War. My right hon. Friend indicated, and I regret to hear him indicate, that that work outside their special and proper function is not to cease at as early a date as I could wish.
8.0 P.M.
I desire to make an observation on that and to press it on my right hon. Friend and the Executive, that is as to the danger to the State of the intervention of judges in work outside their proper functions. It is, I am sure, safeguarded as far as it can be by the distinguished men who undertake those duties, but it is a danger which really cannot be over estimated. The function of a British judge has been hitherto practically strictly confined to his legal duties. Once he gets outside that, difficulties begin to arise, and discussion as to their motives and as to their impar-
tiality inevitably arise, and you cannot help it. They become what judges should never become, subjects of public discussion. I leave the point with the expression of a strong desire on my part, and I am sure on the part of the Attorney-General himself, that this state of things should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible, not only for the sake of the judges, but for the sake of the public at large. Their duties in future, especially of the common law judges are likely to increase in responsibility and in difficulty by reason of the nature of the cases which must inevitably in the very difficult times that lie before us come before them in their judicial capacity. I cannot say that I am very much affected by the plea the Attorney-General makes in regard to the congestion in the Divorce Court. I think it is a matter of regret that these cases cannot be swiftly heard and dealt with. After all, the root cause of it is war conditions, and no doubt what are known as war weddings have produced this increased divorce and separation business. I am content, so far as I am concerned, to allow those cases to take their time. Many of them adjust themselves, and there is no need to press forward with very great speed in dealing with the congestion there. Give them time. Most of those people are very young, and I do not think an extra two or three months' waiting would do very much harm. In many of those cases a little common sense and the influence of friends on both sides assert themselves and satisfactory settlements very often occur. In any event, this is a really abnormal condition of affairs which we all hope will very speedily develop or adduce itself into normal limits. As to some of the remedies I may say at once, much as I regret it, I feel I cannot support this Motion. I think the position can be met without this additional charge. It will take time, but it can be met. How can it be met? I suggest, first of all, that judges should be taken off even the Losses Commission. I am quite certain that King's Counsel of eminence and experience could be found to discharge that duty thoroughly well. In the second place, I think that a remedy might be found in shortening the Long Vacation and that a week or ten days, or even a fortnight, might be taken off. If
you are dealing with an abnormal condition of affairs, as this House, in an abnormal state of affairs, fixes autumn Sessions, why should not the Long Vacation temporarily be shortened? I know it is very hard work on the Judges and officials concerned, and it is very hard work upon the leading silks, but there are many worthy and competent juniors who would be glad of the opportunity to distinguish themselves and who would do very excellent work. Here is another point. What about the gross waste of judicial time and of national expense involved in Judges going on circuit? I know the arguments very well about how much it tends to public respect and regard for justice if a Judge goes on assize rather than the comparative drab of a Commissioner of Assize, but what reason is there, if it is deemed right in the wider public interest to maintain the system of assize in every town, whether there is business to do there or not, that the system of Commissioners of Assize should not be extended until we have got rid of the congestion of business in the courts with the full strength of Judges available?
I am only urging upon the Executive to request the judiciary to adjust themselves, like we have in this House and every other great undertaking throughout the country, to the abnormal conditions, and when those abnormal conditions cease, then the old state of affairs may very easily re-assert itself. I think, with a due sense of my own incapacities for dealing with these questions, that I have submitted a reasonable case for voting against the Motion. May I sum up my points? Great congestion of the courts—admitted; urgency—also admitted, subject to the limitations which I have suggested and caused by abnormal conditions; why not, in the interests of economy, adjust the legal machinery to the abnormal conditions, shorten the Long Vacation by three weeks if necessary, make use of the immense reserve fund that you have of legal capacity in the King's Counsel, who are quite fitted to go on circuit, put a stop at once to the extra-judicial labour laid upon the Judges, have patience, and try these remedies? I believe we should save £10,000 a year to the Consolidated Fund without any real damage to the public interest.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The subject of His Majesty's Judges is one which for many years has occupied a very deep interest in my mind, and I am bound to say that the sentiment has been more or less reciprocated; and I have listened with a special interest to the case made out by the learned Attorney-General for increasing the number of those august functionaries. As one with perhaps a larger experience than the average lay-man of the working of the Law Courts, I am in no carping mood in regard to the administration of justice. I do not think the services of a Judge are to be measured by the exact number of hours he sits; I do not think the fact that he rises at 4 o'clock in any way connotes the conclusion of his day's work—in fact, I have good reason to know that it does not—any more than the closing of the doors of a bank at 3 o'clock indicates that the manager and his staff have gone home; and assuming that there is made out a real case of congestion, I should be the last to oppose this Motion. I do not quite subscribe to the dictum of the last speaker that the administration of justice is a thing which can wait—remote interests and far-reaching consequences often attach to the settlement of a law case—but I am bound to say that I feel there are answers to this demand, some of which, with great force, have been given by the Leader of the Liberal party a few moments ago. It is, to my mind, a little bit unreasonable that in these special time in which we live His Majesty's Judges should insist upon their twelve weeks' holiday. I do not think we get that in this House, and I certainly endorse the appeal that pressure should be brought to bear upon them to curtail their vacation to, say, eight or nine weeks, which, I think, would be ample to recuperate their waning energies.
In regard to the appeal in reference to assizes, whilst fully appreciating those grounds which were put forward by the last speaker, I think there are others. First of all, the employment of Judges for duties entirely outside their judicial functions has become a scandal. In the special emergencies of the War sometimes, and sometimes only, that was necessary, but can it be said with any justification that the Law Courts ought to have been deprived, say, of the services of the Lord Chief Justice for very many
months on purely political work, however competent he may have been to perform it? To have left the Lord Chief Justice-ship practically in commission for many months, whilst the occupant of that office was performing purely political functions, was, to my mind, a very remarkable illustration of the dangerous modern practice to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. I want to make a practical suggestion! I made it, I believe, when the Bill was before the House in 1910. Has the learned Attorney-General considered this? How much time could be saved, how many thousands of cases could be expedited, if you only instituted in every court of law—in the High Court, at any rate—the appointment of an official shorthand writer? At present the waste of time involved whilst the Judge is taking down notes of evidence, the long pauses, during which I have heard eminent counsel say to witnesses, sometimes rather impatiently, "Do watch his Lordship's pen," making notes which his Lordship himself sometimes is unable to read, and which, when they occasionally come before the Court of Appeal, are utterly illegible, is a scandal. If you had an official shorthand writer attached to every court, taking down the evidence and leaving the Judge just to make such notes on special points in the evidence to which he desired to call the attention of the jury, you would, I am sure, save an enormous amount of time and money. I know that judges do make remarkable notes sometimes. I do not know whether it might interest the learned Attorney-General to know that I have in my possession one of the notebooks of the late Mr. Justice Hawkins, and in a somewhat famous case, in which the Law Officer of the Crown, who had never previously addressed the jury, was somewhat heavily taxing the patience of the judge, I found this:
Patience Competition.
Gold Medal—Henry Hawkins. Honourable mention—Job.
I think the judges might well be left to make notes of that kind rather than go through the farce of writing down question and answer in the way they do, and wasting an enormous amount of time. That is a suggestion I make to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do it as one who has been very much impressed by the waste of time involved in the present
system. I venture respectfully to endorse the suggestion, if it is not too late, to take a judge away from the War Losses Commission. There is no particular magic in a judge assessing war losses. It is a commercial question. Any chartered accountant could do the work just as well. Why we are sending a judge to Ireland I do not know, and I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce a system of official shorthand writers, and if he would also, through the Head of the Judiciary, intimate to some of His Majesty's judges that they might be a little less prolix in their summings-up and judgments, and also in their facetiousness, we might get through the work a great deal better. But I make the practical suggestion that the system that exists to-day in the Central Criminal Court, and certain other tribunals, of employing official shorthand writers should be extended. Let the evidence be taken down in that way, and let the judge make only such notes as are necessary. It would save an enormous amount of time. I have seen enough of these courts to know that the continued delay in the trial of cases may often be wrecking many a home and many a life, and jeopardising many a commercial undertaking. Therefore, I shall reluctantly for the second time—I hope almost the last time of my life—go into the Lobby with the Government.

Commander BELLAIRS: I think it must have been in the minds of the framers of the 1910 Act that the Government would be forced to come to the House with a Resolution of this character, and now that we have the learned Attorney-General and the learned Solicitor-General both on the Treasury Bench, it is as well, perhaps, that they should have to listen for once in a number of years to criticism of judicial procedure. The learned Attorney-General said the case he had submitted was not only strong but overwhelming. I grant it was a strong case, but I do not think it was overwhelming, and the case generally vanished, so far as the necessities were concerned, under the criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and my hon. Friend—I may say also my learned Friend—the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who is so well versed in the law. I will submit one criticism different from that made by the
two previous speakers. No attempt has really been made since Lord Brougham's time to make the law more rapid and cheaper. The learned Attorney-General referred to one Act in the War which withdrew a number of trial-by-jury cases. That was excellent, and I hope that something will be done on those lines to make it permanent, instead of temporary. But I submit that we have seen cases often in this country where counsel have addressed the court at inordinate length, and some check ought to be imposed by the judges on these very long speeches. I think there was a case not very long ago where counsel spoke for nine or ten days. I am not sure, but I think it was the Phoenix Gold Mine case. I remember reading in one of Jefferson's works how Washington and Franklin used to carry on the Government of America and never addressed Congress for longer than ten minutes at a time, however important the subject, and he went on to say that it was due to the legal profession that there was so much waste of time and Members of Congress spoke at such inordinate length, there being 150 lawyers in Congress. That occurs in the Law Courts to a very large extent, and something has got to be done to check it.
Both hon. Members who spoke before me referred to the way in which His Majesty's judges had been withdrawn from their proper work. I agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles that even the War Losses Commission would be much better presided over by somebody else than one of His Majesty's judges. There were withdrawals for the Mesopotamia Commission, the Dardanelles Commission, the Hunter Commission and the Coal Commission. Then Lord Cave was sent to South Africa for a long time. I fail to see the necessity for any one of those long withdrawals, and it all indicates to the public that the necessity for these two judges being appointed at a cost of £10,000 a year is not altogether proved. I think it was Dickens who said that "Necessity knows no law, but she has her lawyers." I am quite sure that the learned Attorney-General can always prove the necessity of any case, and I felt rather convinced by his arguments as he spoke, but when I heard the arguments addressed by the two subsequent speakers, the necessity seemed to me to vanish, and, although I
shall support the Government in their demand on this occasion, I do ask the Law Officers of the Crown and the Lord Chancellor seriously to address themselves to this question of speeding up the law and trying to make the law cheaper.

Mr. CLYNES: I can speak on a matter of this kind only from general observation, and not as the result of any expert or inside knowledge, and I rise to say that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) carries his resistance into the Division Lobby, the action of many of us on this side of the House will depend on what the learned Solicitor-General says in reply to the criticisms which have been addressed to him. I think there is a great deal of force in two of the points which have been submitted. The placing of Judges in positions where the application of the judicial mind, and the use of the great store of knowledge and experience which they have acquired can be of service, is quite natural. Those great tasks of investigation have naturally called for the best minds that can be applied to them, and I am not offering any criticism upon particular cases which occur to one's mind on looking over what has happened in the last year or two; but, in view of the great arrears of work, and the ordinary and fixed work which these judges do, I think we should have some assurance of what is likely to be the policy of the Government on this head with regard to the future. My right hon. Friend alleged that there are available a large number of other men of great competence and experience, though not exactly as high in rank as the Judges, who have all the capacity for discharging these very heavy obligations. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the salary paid to the Judges justifies us in saying that the job is one which is sufficient for one man, and that a man who takes a Judge's job should seek no other. This is essentially an instance in which the principle of "one man one job" might well be applied. As to the amount of the work performed by these Judges in the courts, I have no experience; but an observer may refer to the Long Vacation as too long a period, even for men who are subject to great mental strain during the other portions of the year when they are serving. There is strong popular resentment, I think almost a united
public feeling, against the idea of that very great interval between work. On at least these two points some reassuring statement might well be made to the House.
If it would not be quite outside the scope of this discussion I should like to address an observation or two on a slightly different point, still having some bearing upon the administration of the law of the country. There are a large number of unpaid judges in this country—I refer to the ordinary magistrates. There is very great congestion in regard to the ordinary work of the magistrates. Their work does not consist, as some imagine, of sitting once a week on the Bench. There are a large number of papers, documents, and forms of many kinds that have to be signed by them. We have numerous instances of the impossibility of working people in congested areas getting to the men who have power and authority as magistrates to affix their signatures, and deal otherwise with these matters. Without labouring the point, or arguing it, I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is a very strong sense of protest against the non-appointment of a large number of working men and men of the lower middle classes who are excellently fitted for the discharge of these magisterial duties. The House is well aware that appointments of this sort were in former years mostly, if not solely, partisan appointments. We are, happily, I think, travelling from that condition of affairs, if we have not absolutely departed from it. I am not suggesting that these appointments should be made for any partisan reasons, but I do suggest, with regard to the administration of that part of the law, it is of the first importance that those who have these appointments in their keeping should look sympathetically upon the claims of many men who are competent for that kind of work. Returning to the Resolution, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some reassuring statement to the House upon what, I think, are the very potent criticisms which have been addressed to him.

Mr. PALMER: I beg to move, after the word "that" ["that vacancies not exceeding two"], to insert the words "one of the".
I wish to endorse what has been said by the last speaker, and to make a suggestion following upon the speech of my hon. and not unlearned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). In my opinion, these new judges, despite the very good case the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General has attempted to make, are entirely unnecessary. The Attorney-General said that the congestion in the Courts could not be dealt with by the existing judicial staff. I maintain that it can be dealt with by the existing judicial staff if you change the system. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke previously that if you could get away from this miserable idea that the Courts must rise for 10 weeks in the year, and 10 weeks at, one time despite other holidays, you could wipe off almost the whole of these arrears. Is there a man in any other profession in the country who can claim, and be certain of getting, each year 10 weeks' holiday? There is hardly a Member of this House, not excluding the Law Officers of the Crown, whose holidays are not small and miserable in comparison with the vacation taken by the Judges. I suggest that if the Government will only bring in a Bill removing from the High Court the numerous divorce cases, and put them on to Assizes, to which very often the Judge goes down, and goes through the formula of white gloves, and also of bringing in a Bill giving power to the County Court Judges to deal with these cases, you would save a good deal of time and, what is very much more important at the moment, a great deal of money.
I look upon this thing from the point of view of another—10,000 put upon the taxpayers of the country. The Attorney-General suggested that the Judges earn their money. I say with all deference to him that in the King's Bench Division the fees are not of such a character that the Judge earns his salary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were talking of the Chancery Division I would agree, but in respect to the King's Bench Division, honestly, I think that he is wrong, and he is rather overstating his case. I associate myself with all that has been said in the matter of taking Judges from their proper duties for matters and inquiries which are not their concern. In my hunble way I enter my protest against this continual attempt of the Government to mix up the judiciary with the executive
of this country. It is a most vicious principle. It was largely adopted, possibly owing to difficulties during the War, when the Lord Chief Justice, a man whose duty it is to administer the law, was largely concerned with the Government with making and framing the law. I shall feel it my duty to vote against this Resolution, but rather than take an absolute negative stand I desire to put forward the Amendment I have put forward.
To-day we are faced with an enormous expenditure. I do think that if the Government cannot make out a better case than this, in their own interests they ought to try to stop this constant demand upon the public purse. The Government should realise the strong feeling in the country. If they did they would try to create an atmosphere of economy, even if it was not true. They should try to camouflage some of their demands by the suggestion that they were as anxious for economy as are the people of this country. In passing, may I remark that we are fighting now in regard to the £3,000,000 for the Army. We are fighting in regard to the enormous waste due to the War Secretary in Mesopotamia, and the other excursions in all parts of the world. To-day we stand here fighting for a principle in objecting to this £10,000 extra being put upon the taxpayers of this country, and to mitigate the expenditure suggested in this Resolution. The Attorney-General has told us that these proposals will come up for revision under the terms of the Act of 1910, whenever the effluxion of time or the necessity arises, and that the number may fall again to 15 puisne judges. I do feel so strong about this matter that I shall ask hon. Members to stand with my hon. Friend and myself for economy. I ask them to vote with me in this matter. We think that the number of times in which learned judges have been withdrawn from their duties to assist the country and the Government in important inquiries is utterly unnecessary. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) secured the appointment of a Committee to deal with courts martial. I do not know why we should have taken Mr. Justice Darling from his ordinary duties to spend his time presiding over that Committee because it was largely conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney, who might very well have been put in the Chair.
My hon. Friend has a sufficient knowledge of the value of evidence and the demeanour of witnesses to have taken on that task, and yet, for some reason, Mr. Justice Darling was brought from his duties, sometimes I admit at four o'clock, to preside over this Committee, which had to deal with what was almost entirely a House of Commons and a Departmental matter.
Then we have the Hunter Commission and there was another judge appointed. There was also the Coal Commission, and Mr. Justice Sankey, who ought to have remained free from all political and controversial measures put forward a wholly partisan report which set the country by the heels. If the Government would keep the judges of this land to their proper duties they would enlarge the scope of their possibilities in regard to divorce business. The Attorney-General made a point of this congestion in the divorce courts which is largely the trouble to-day. It is one of the results of the War which we all deplore, but it is only transient and will pass away. I hope the Government will take advantage of the fact that there is congestion by utilising the judges of Assize and county court judges to take up these cases and if they do great benefit will result.

Mr. LYNN: I beg to second the Amendment, in order to protest against this attempt to increase the number of judges. In the past judges have been taken away from their ordinary duties to do political work. We are always talking here about economy, but if the Government want economy they can easily get two or three Irish judges who have nothing to do in Ireland and bring them over here, or they can get three or four Scottish judges who have no legal work to do, and they might be brought over here. The law may be different in Scotland, and some people are pleased that it is, but so far as the law in Ireland and England is concerned, there is no difference between the two countries, and therefore if you want two or three judges here to do the extra work, you can easily get them from Ireland at the present time. It is not so much on that point as on the point that His Majesty's Government have been taking these judges and using them for political purposes that I rise to second the Amendment. I have discovered that the judges of the High Court in Ireland are indulging in the work of politics. It is difficult under the rules
of the House to draw attention to this fact, but at the present time we are afforded an opportunity, and therefore I want to protest against the fact that judges who have been—

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it in order to take advantage of this Motion to attack the conduct of existing judges?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): Certainly not.

Mr. LYNN: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member has raised this point. We have judges in Ireland who are available, and might be used to carry out what is wanted under the Motion before the House. Instead of putting the country to extra expense, they might easily use these judges to carry out this extra work.

Captain BENN: I presume that some reply is going to be given, and I am in hopes that the Attorney-General will answer definitely the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), as to whether it is intended to attempt to overtake the arrears of legal work by a curtailment of the long vacation. Now we are only voting that £10,000 should be placed on the Consolidated Fund to pay the salaries of the judges, but that is not the end of this expenditure. What we are voting will imply a new staff, new clerks, and all sorts of subservient officers. I know that this will come on the votes, but I do not think the expenses of the law staff are paid out of the Consolidated Fund at all.
Before we pass this Motion, I think we ought to have a pledge that we shall have an estimate of what the cost is going to be. The Lord Privy Seal said that he would not propose any Motion involving the expenditure of money without circulating a White Paper, showing the details of the proposed expenditure. Here is a Motion which involves an indefinite enlargement of staff. I do not know whether it involves additional premises, printing and stationery, but I think we are certainly entitled to base ourselves on the pledge given by the Leader of the House, and ask that this Motion should not be proceeded with until a White Paper has been presented. I do not know whether new buildings are involved.

Sir G. HEWART: Of Course not. It will be very slight, if any.

Captain BENN: I think this is such a case as was contemplated by the Leader of the House when he said he would not ask us to vote any sums without giving us an estimate of the cost. I understand that judges are to be sent to Ireland to investigate the case of the untried prisoners, and I want to know if that is going to be a permanency. The Government are pursuing a policy in Ireland which involves the arrest of a number of persons without charging them, and their detention for a long period without trial. This involves the detailing of a judge of the English High Court to go to Ireland to look into these cases and to find out why people have been arrested and whether it is proper to retain them in custody. In the meantime, Irish judges have nothing to do. Will the Attorney-General tell us how many of the Courts in Ireland have really suffered a sensible decrease in the number of cases they are called upon to deal with? Everybody knows that in the County Courts and other smaller Courts there is practically no work at all. What about the High Courts in Ireland. Has there been a sensible diminution in their business, and, if so, what a curious procedure it is to find Irish judges out of work and English judges being sent to try Irish prisoners. Surely, that requires some explanation? The points upon which I hope the Attorney-General will give us some enlightenment are these: Will there be a curtailment, temporary or otherwise, of the legal vacation in order to enable the judges to pick up the arrears of business; secondly, in regard to the judge who is going to be sent to Ireland, is it to be a full-time permanent job; thirdly, is it the fact that the work of the Irish judges has been sensibly lessened, owing to the peculiar conditions obtaining in Ireland; and fourthly, bearing in mind the definite pledge given to this House at the request of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), what is going to be the incidental cost of this Resolution, and I want to know if we are to have presented to us a White Paper showing that cost before we are asked to pass the Resolution?

Colonel YATE: I accept the statement of the Attorney-General as to the neces-
sity for these two extra judges, and I shall support this Resolution in the Division Lobby. I agree, however, that a proposal to curtail the legal vacation to eight or nine weeks in the year will certainly meet with general approval. I should like to know what arrangement has been made with regard to the pensions of these two new judges? So far as I know, English judges are the only people in the country who get a pension which represents more than 50 per cent. of their pay. I believe the ordinary Civil Servant's maximum pension does not exceed 50 per cent. of his salary. Is there any special cause why a larger pension should be granted to judges? Their salaries are £5,000 a year, their pensions are £3,500. Why should they get more than £2,500. I hope the Attorney-General will take this matter into consideration. We are all desirous of economy, and if these two new judges are to be appointed, I see no reason why they should be given a higher pension than is granted to any other public servant—naval, military or civil.

Sir. G. HEWART: In replying to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer), perhaps I may also, by leave of the House, take the opportunity to refer to various points made in the general Debate. I will, if I may, deal first with the observations of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who, indeed, in the course of his speech anticipated a great part of what was afterwards submitted by other speakers. The first point the right hon. Gentleman made was that it was by no means only in the Law Courts that congestion was to be found. I quite agree, and I hope it is not going to be made a grievance against me that this Resolution does not deal with congestion in other places besides the Law Courts. I shall feel I have discharged my part if I satisfy the House there is undoubtedly in the Law Courts such a congestion as needs to be dealt with in this way. It is said that the case presented for this Bill is not really strong. I am not going to repeat the figures which have been given, but I do suggest there has never been put forward a stronger case. If the case was sufficiently strong in 1910 to induce the passing of the Act under which this Motion is made, I can only say it is still
stronger to-day. The next point made by my right hon. Friend was as to the employment of judges of the King's Bench Division upon duties which are really not judicial. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I entirely agree, that it is highly desirable that the employment of judges in that way should cease at the earliest possible moment. If I may anticipate what was said a little later on in the most temperate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), I think I am expressing more than a personal opinion when I say that the employment of judges in that way is on many grounds undesirable. It can only be justified on the ground of necessity. Let me add this observation. The employment of judges upon the kind of task to which reference has been made took place mostly during the War. It was the diminution of the ordinary judicial business consequent upon the War which rendered such a course possible. I entirely agree that, whether we look at it from the point of view of what is fair to the learned judge himself, or from the point of view of what is really desirable in the public interest, it is not a thing which should be done if it can by any possibility be avoided.
May I pause to make one reference to a criticism which was levelled against the absence of the Lord Chief Justice in America? With regard to that, one may say, without presumption, it could only be justified by necessity. I do seriously suggest, however, to every Member of this House that it was justified by necessity in that particular case, and that the brilliant and unexampled success with which the Lord Chief Justice conducted that difficult task is an admirable recompense for the loss which the Law Courts suffered by reason of his absence from this country. It has been further said, with regard to the employment of learned judges upon duties not of a distinctly judicial character, that it is to be regretted that their further employment in that way is contemplated. Let me observe that in the only two cases which, so far as I know, are contemplated of employing judges of the King's Bench Division outside the Law Courts, their task is really of a judicial character. The hearing of claims before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission is essentially judicial. My hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for South Hackney seemed to think that a judge was at present being employed for that purpose. He suggested that he was taken away for that purpose. On the contrary, up to the present time a judge has not been employed in the work of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; but it was in consequence of the very strongly expressed view of this House that, in the altered circumstances which had arisen, it was decided to ask one of His Majesty's judges to begin—he has not yet begun—that task.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: That was requested; I am quite aware of that.

Sir G. HEWART: The other matter is that of presiding over the inquiry in Ireland. I am rather surprised at the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn). I certainly thought it was a little ungrateful that he should have complained of our contemplating a judge for that purpose. If I recollect aright, he himself was strongly of the opinion that an inquiry of that kind should be presided over by a judge.

Captain BENN: That is quite a mistake. I said you ought to try people by the law of the land.

Sir G. HEWART: This may be a convenient moment for me to refer to what has been said further upon that matter. The hon. and gallant Member asked whether it was not the case that in Ireland, in the ordinary courts of law, there had been a sensible decrease of business. I am assured that that is not the case. The further point was made that the great number of cases in the Divorce Court might—not to put it too strongly—be left to take care of themselves. With great respect, I cannot agree with that criticism. Nothing, I should imagine, causes greater unhappiness than a divorce suit which is long pending and the decision of which is long delayed. These cases, undoubtedly, are for the most part cases in which the parties are poor people, and I am by no means sure that it is true to say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said, that they are cases arising for the most part out of War weddings. I think I dealt with this matter in part in the observations I made in moving the Resolution. It is a fact that this great
increase in the number of divorce petitions has, indeed, coincided with the difficulties arising out of the War, but it has also coincided with the granting of new and excellent facilities to poor persons for bringing in their petitions. It was said by more than one hon. Member—I think the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) urged the point, and it was also urged by at least one other hon. Member—that some alleviation may be obtained if the present system is altered, and divorce cases are allowed to be tried at Assizes. I am expressing only a personal opinion when I say that that seems to me a highly desirable method.

Mr. PALMER: And in County Courts.

Sir G. HEWART: I am not so sure as to that. I am quite sure the hon. Member will agree that in divorce cases, where there is a large amount of room for judicial expression, it is very important to preserve uniformity and consistency of decision, which might be difficult if the work of dealing with these cases were committed to the enormous number of county court judges in various parts of the country. It is, however, a suggestion which I may say is also well worthy of consideration. Many hon. Members dwelt upon the point that the Long Vacation was too long, and ought to be shortened—at first it was said by one week, then by two weeks, and afterwards by three weeks. I should like to point out what does not seem to be generally understood, namely, that the machinery of the High Court by no means stands still in the Long Vacation. The work of the offices is going on, and a Vacation Judge sits at regular intervals, so that urgent matters can always be dealt with. I am by no means sure that the parties in important proceedings would welcome the notion of having their causes tried and their witnesses summoned in August, September, and the early days of October. I am not complaining at anything that has been said, or of the tone of this Debate, but it is very easy to imagine that judges are less busy than they are. One sees the work that they do in court, from a quarter past ten till a quarter past four. I wonder how many of those who criticise the work which judges do, reflect on the strain it is upon the human faculties, however brilliant they may be, to sit for five hours
day after day with fixed attention, not upon one side or the other of the case, but upon the case as a whole. I know from my own experience that very busy counsel, who have stood for a long time the strain of advocacy in the courts, have been astonished, when they came to preside over an arbitration or sit as umpire, to see how exacting is the labour of the judicial office. It has further to be remembered that the judges of the High Court are of necessity appointed somewhat late in life. Before they reach the point at which it is possible that they should be considered for the judicial bench, they must have spent many laborious years, and their work, as I have said, is far more laborious and exacting than is commonly imagined. So far as the public facilities in getting legal business done are concerned, it is quite erroneous to imagine that the machine stands still on the 1st August and does not come into operation again until some day in October. I quite recognise—and here again I am expressing a personal opinion—that the curtailment of the Long Vacation to some extent is a matter well worthy of the most careful consideration. It would not only affect the judges but everyone—judges, counsel, solicitors, witnesses, everyone whatsoever who is concerned in the actual administration of the law.
9.0 P.M.
The remaining point that was urged and anticipated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles was that a great deal of time was wasted in going circuit. That matter was very carefully examined some time ago by a Royal Commission, and I do not know that those who have looked into the matter with care and authority would express so confident an opinion. It is not a small matter that periodically—not at frequent intervals, but periodically—one of His Majesty's Judges, the Red Judge, should go from London to the assize town, and should be seen there as one of His Majesty's Judges, coming there to administer the law, both criminal and civil. Then it was further said—and this argument was employed by my right hon. Friend both with regard to the question of circuit and with regard to the employment of Judges in any capacity whatsoever—that it would be possible to employ upon a much larger scale distinguished King's Counsel, both as Commissioners of Assize
and the other capacities. Does he suppose that he would employ them without remuneration? Does he suppose thatthat system would be a complete saving of expense? I do not think that matter has been sufficiently considered.
Now I come to the arguments, so far as I have not dealt with them already, of the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley). In my opinion, there is a very great deal to be said for the regular employment of official shorthand writers, but please do not let the House imagine that that would necessarily lead to a saving of time. An official shorthand writer, no doubt, is a great boon in the sense of saving the time of those who otherwise would have to make a very full note, but there are two observations to be made. The first is that an official shorthand writer and the obtaining and multiplying of transcripts of official shorthand notes tend to be surprisingly expensive sometimes, and the labour of reading an official shorthand note which contains everyting is very different in point of time and in point of labour from the task of reading a note of what are the essential points taken by an experienced Judge. But I agree that it is a matter well worthy of consideration. Further, it was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs) that there had been no attempt since the time of Lord Brougham to expedite the law.

Commander BELLAIRS: Not in a general way.

Sir G. HEWART: If time permitted and if this were a suitable occasion it would be interesting to trace the various steps which have been taken in that direction. There are the enormous simplification and shortening of pleas, and all the saving of time that gives, the devolution of work upon a great scale, which I hope will be carried further, from the High Court to the County Court, and there are other matters also which I might mention. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also alluded to a certain disposition, as he thought, on the part of lawyers to tedious argument. I do not think in this House it is the legal speakers who speak at the greatest length, and so far as the Law Courts are concerned, although you may point to individual exceptions, I should have thought nothing was more manifest—and I speak with 20 years' experience—than the increas-
ing tendency to shorten the arguments and speeches of counsel. Finally, it was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) that where a learned judge is taken away for extra judicial duties, one ought to remember the maxim that there should be one job for one salary. I may have completely misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but was it in his mind that where a judge is taken away for work of that kind he continues to receive his judicial salary and a salary for the other post as well, because if that really is his impression, I can assure him that it is an impression without foundation. When the learned judges to whom reference was made were taken away for the performance of extra judicial duties, the emoluments which they continued to receive were the emoluments of their judicial duties alone, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Then it was finally put to me that if these new judges are appointed some collateral or ancillary expenditure will also be necessary. There may be an usher, there may be a clerk. Really, if that is to be suggested, we have come down to the very smallest points. It was said, with apparent belief, that some pledge had been given that, where a Money Bill involving the payment of money was introduced, a White Paper should be circulated, showing what the expense is. Is it really suggested, except for the purpose of controversy and delay, that where we ask for the appointment of two additional judges under the conditions of the Act of 1910, we are to be stopped because we have not published a White Paper showing what would be the salary of the usher and the clerk? I will not deal further with that point. Finally, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite raised the point that these additional judges would receive a pension in the fullness of time at the end of their service. It is to be observed of a judge's pension that he does not receive it until he has served fifteen years, and, further, with regard to the distinguished men who accept these position, usually, in order that they may take them, they make very heavy financial sacrifices. It would be rather odd at this time of day, when taxation is so high and the cost of everything that has to be bought is so much increased, that one should propose to reduce the pensions of the judges of
the High Court. To the best of my ability, I have dealt with the various points that have been raised. There is one further matter to which I should like to refer. The House is not being asked to sanction a permanent increase of the King's Bench Division by two judges. It is being asked, in the terms of the Act of 1910, to sanction the appointment of two Judges subject to this, that no vacancy can be filled, so long as the number of Judges is fifteen or more; without further reference to both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Beyond these two?

Sir G. HEWART: No, instead of these two. Let me make that point very clear There will be, as time goes on and retirements take place through death and otherwise, an automatic return to the number of fifteen, and it will not be possible, so long as there are fifteen remaining, to fill up a vacancy without coming to this House.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: And meanwhile there are seventeen?

Sir G. HEWART: Meanwhile, and for a little time.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Judges never die:

Mr. G. THORNE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman rather brushed aside the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the White Paper. I do not say that we desire to go so far as to insist that there should be delay by reason of the absence of a White Paper, but in the interests of economy I think that this requirement is one that should be most rigidly observed because it is of vital importance that in these times we should have a proper account of what the proposed expenditure is to be. I think that this is a case in which that should have been done, and I rather regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not express his own regret that it had not been done. It appears that he regards it as a small matter, but in consideration of this point, it does not matter so much whether it is small or large. I think that whether the money is to be large or small we should make sure that a White Paper is presented.

Question put, "That the words 'one of the' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 158.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
 [7.17 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Atkey, A. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)


Armitage, Robert
Baird, John Lawrence
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Baldwim, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-


Barnett, Major R. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Purchase, H. G.


Barrand, A. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rae, H. Norman


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hailwood, Augustine
Ramsden, G. T.


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hanna, George Boyle
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harris, Sir, Henry Percy
Renwick, George


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rodger, A. K.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hinds, John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Seager, Sir William


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Simm, M. T.


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jesson, C.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Casey, T. W.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Stanton, Charles B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stevens, Marshall


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stewart, Gershom


Clough, Robert
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Coate, William (Tyrone, South)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Courthope, Major George L.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macmaster, Donald
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Turton, E. R.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Maddocks, Henry
Waddington, R.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Dawes, Commander
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Middlebrook, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, William Lane
Weston, Colonel John W.


Duncannon, Viscount
Moles, Thomas
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Edge, Captain William
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Whitla, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Mount, William Arthur
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Fildes, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Newman, Major J. (Mid'x, Finchley)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nield, Sir Herbert
Wolmer, Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Oman, Charles William C.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gange, E. Stanley
Parker, James
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Woolcock, William James U.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Percy, Charles
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Glyn, Major Ralph
Perkins, Walter Frank
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Perring, William George
Younger, Sir George


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gregory, Holman
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gretton, Colonel John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Galbraith, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Briant, Frank
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)


Cape, Thomas
Hancock, John George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hayday, Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R
Hayward, Major Evan
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Johnstone, Joseph
Robertson, John


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John J.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lunn, William
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)




Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wallace, J.
Wilson, W. Tyrone (Westhoughton)


Sitch, Charles H.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)



Swan, J. E.
Wilkie, Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Major Mackenzie Wood and Major Entwistle.


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[9.12 p.m.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hancock, John George
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hayward, Major Evan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Stanton, Charles B.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lynn, R. J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tootill, Robert


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wignall, James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Finney, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Rodger, A. K.
Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Palmer.


Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Royce, William Stapleton





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Atkey, A. R.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Peace, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baird, John Lawrence
Gregory, Holman
Perkins, Walter Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perring, William George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hallwood, Augustine
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, W. R.


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Rae, H. Norman


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Blane, T. A.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Renwick, George


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hinds, John
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Seager, Sir William


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Simm, M. T.


Casey, T. W.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Jesson, C.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Clough, Robert
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnstone, Joseph
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sutherland, Sir William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Colvin, Lieut.-Colonel Richard Beale
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Taylor, J.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cope, Major Wm.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courthope, Major George L.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Turton, E. R.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Waddington, R.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Wallace, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macmaster, Donald
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Maddocks, Henry
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Middlebrook, Sir William
Weston, Colonel John W.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, William Lane
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edge, Captain William
Moles, Thomas
Whitla, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Elveden, Viscount
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mount, William Arthur
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murchison, C. K.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)



Fell, Sir Arthur
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fildes, Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gange, E. Stanley
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Gardiner, James
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Main Question again proposed.

Captain BENN: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I move the adjournment until we have the White Paper which will show what the expenses will be. The Attorney-General,
judging from the indignation with which he spoke, had not any answer to the question I put to him about expenses.

Sir G. HEWART: I was amused.

Captain HENN: This is a serious question. Even if it is meticulous I am not ashamed of it, because it is time that we should exercise meticulous care in the matter of expenditure. The Attorney-General says: "The hon. Member wants to know what is the cost of an usher. Because we are appointing two additional judges it involves an additional usher, and he protests because the cost of the usher is not put in the White Paper." The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Estimates of the Supreme Court of Judicature. I do not know the actual number of judges in each Division, but the total cost of the judges, not including their salaries, is £129,000 a year.

Sir G. HEWART: Have you looked at the other side of the account?

Captain BENN: What other side?

Sir G. HEWART: The credit side

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Appropriations in Aid? I am talking of the money we vote. The Appropriations in Aid are £67,000. A very considerable sum is necessary, and we are going to add two additional Judges. We have the most definite pledge by the Leader of the House that we shall not be asked to vote additional sums of money without an Estimate. Surely it is not an unreasonable request to put forward that that pledge should be kept. That which I understood was indignation on the part of the Attorney-General he now says was amusement. He says that I want a White Paper for some trivial sum. So carefully has the Leader of the House been to fulfil his pledge that we have actually had a White Paper, I have it in my possession now, for a sum which is not to exceed £5,000 in a year. Therefore the House of Commons in the interest of economy should insist upon the fulfilment of the pledge of the Lord Privy Seal and protest against expenditure until we know what increased expenditure will be necessary.

Mr. PALMER: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am going to make a suggestion which I hope the Attorney-General may be able to accept. If he is determined not to give the White Paper which has been asked for, I do not think it is an unreasonable request that after the Debate is over, and after the Motion has been carried, as no doubt it will be, he should give the House information by means of an Estimate of cost being laid on the Table. I am not suggesting that he should create any precedent of any real merit at all likely to obstruct business, but only as an aid to common-sense finance. The proposal is one which involves an additional charge of £10,000 upon the Consolidated Fund for the Judges' expenses, with all the ancillary expenses to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. I am sure that I can persuade my right hon. Friend to give the House of Commons the information for which I ask. Under the Rules of the House we cannot discuss on the Estimates anything about the Judges. That is withdrawn, very properly, from the purview of the House, except on a Motion which is regularly laid before the House. Therefore I hope the Attorney-General will give the information in the way I have suggested.

Sir G. HEWART: I have little to add to what I have already said. The position as I understand it is this: The House is asked to pass a Resolution contemplated by the Act of 1910. If that Resolution is passed the consequence will be or may be the appointment of two learned Judges at certain salaries, and with the possibility of receiving pensions of which the House is well aware. All kinds of suggestions, which I regarded with amusement, were made as to the possible consequential expenditure upon the appointment of these two new Judges. I was asked, for example, whether there would have to be new buildings for them to sit in. That is a kind of question which a man asks in order to create a smile. He is not asking for information. Then I was asked whether there might not have to be an additional doorkeeper or an additional usher. I do not know whether the existing staff of ushers and doorkeepers will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the Judges and the Courts ever which they will preside. I have no information upon the matter. If I had I would cheerfully give it here and now.

Mr. RAFFAN: The Attorney-General has supplied an admirable argument in favour of the Motion. Not only has he declined to give information, but he has told us he is not in possession of information. In the circumstances the House cannot profitably go to a Division, because it is not in a position to know what cost will be involved in the proposal before the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has been aware that this matter was to be brought forward this evening, he might have made inquiry as to the cost, so that he might have been in a position to put the House in a position to vote on the matter. We are told that the House of Commons must exercise economy. How is the House of Commons legitimately to discharge its function as the custodian of the public purse if before we vote for this

money we are not in possession of information as to the sums which we are voting? Under the circumstances the Motion is fully warranted, and I hope the Government will not press the matter further to-night. However, as that is a hope which I am afraid will not be realised, I trust that the House, which has been lectured so often by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to its duty as a vigi lant guardian of the public purse, will in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer remember that injunction and vote for the Motion.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 48.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[9.31 p.m.


Agg-Gardiner, sir James Tynte
Gardiner, James
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Baird, John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gregory, Holman
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gretton, Colonel John
Perring, William George


Barnston, Major Harry
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Preston, W. R.


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H.T.(Lon'derry, N.)
Haliwood, Augustine
Prescott, Major W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rae, H. Norman


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Blane, T. A.
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Renwick, George


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hinds, John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Seager, Sir William


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Simm, M. T.


Casey, T. W.
Jesson, C.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Clough, Robert
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanton, Charles B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Sutherland, Sir William


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Taylor, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Courthope, Major George L.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Turton, E. R.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Vickers, Douglas


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Waddington, R.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wallace, J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macmaster, Donald
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Maddocks, Henry
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mallalieu, F. W.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Middlebrook, Sir William
Whitla, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
Mitchell, William Lane
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Moles, Thomas
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Elveden, Viscount
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Mount, William Arthur
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Falcon, Captain Michael
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murchison, C. K.



Fell, Sir Arthur
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fildes, Henry
Neal, Arthur
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward.


Gange, E. Stanley
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Robertson, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Rodger, A. K.


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Hancock, John George
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bromfield, William
Heyday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hogge, James Myles
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnstone, Joseph
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lawson, John J.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Finney, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Glanville, Harold James
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Palmer and Mr. Raffan.


Resolution agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty representing that the state of business in the King's Bench Division requires that vacancies, not exceeding two, should be filled in the number of puisne judges of the King's Bench Division, notwithstanding that the number of those judges amounts to fifteen or upwards, and praying that His Majesty will be graciously pleased to fill such vacancies accordingly in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1910.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — BANK NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill of one clause is to give effect to one definite purpose, and it imposes no charge of any kind. It makes no alteration in either the status or the amount of the note issues in Ireland. It is drafted at the unanimous request of the six banks which issue notes in Ireland. It may not be generally known to Members in Great Britain that the Irish practice is very far behind the practice in this country or in our Dominions, in that even to this day Irish bank notes may be presented in any amount for payment at any branch. In Great Britain they are legally presentable for payment only at the head offices of the banks. It is proposed by this Bill to bring the practice in Ireland into conformity with the rule in every other part of the Empire. The reason why this step is necessary at the present time is this. Every hon. Member knows that one of the things we have to watch with the greatest care at present is any increase in the issue of currency notes, and that every step
should be taken that can be taken to keep as low as possible, having regard to the amount of trade in the country concerned. The result of the Irish banks working under this law of over 90 years ago is that all the banks have to keep a much larger amount of currency in each of their branches than they would have to keep if the practice in regard to payment was the same in Ireland as in this country. In other words, the Bill will release a certain amount of currency. Anything that helps to-day to lock up currency is bad. Currency enough is needed, owing to the greatly enhanced prices of all goods and owing to the increase in wages bills. Owing to those causes the issues in Ireland largely increased during the War. The remedy proposed here is a simple one, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that the details of the one clause may be examined in Committee upstairs.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the operation of this Bill, when it becomes a statute, is likely to reduce the paper currency. I should have thought that by making these notes payable only at the head offices you would increase the fluidity of their currency.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not quite sure that I follow my right hon. Friend. The form of currency that is legal tender is the currency note. A considerable amount of these has to be held against possible payments in all kinds of small bank branches throughout the country. That is wholly unnecessary for the ordinary purposes of trade. The Bill will relieve them of this form of holding, and will reduce considerably the amount that will be required.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not sure that I understand exactly what this Bill means.
First of all, I do not appreciate the period of time at which it is introduced. We are passing through the House of Commons a measure of Home Rule for Ireland. Presumably, this question of the internal banking arrangements of Ireland is one of the questions with which a United Ireland would be the proper body to deal. Is not that so? I should have thought that a Member of the Government, and probably a more responsible Member than his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because I value my right hon. Friend's efforts very much higher than his colleague's—I should have thought that he, coming forward to move the Second Reading of this Bill, would have offered some observations upon the necessity for changing the Irish banking system at a moment alien we were passing through the House of Commons another Bill entailing a huge constitutional change. Personally, I do not pretend to be acquainted with the financial arrangements of the banking concerns in Ireland, but I have read Clause 1 and I fail to see why persons in possession of these Bank notes should be deprived of the liberty of having them paid out in full at any branch bank. What is the meaning of the Clause? Personally, I have a great contempt for all banking institutions in this country and in Ireland. I think they are really pawnbroking establishments and not banking establishments at all. There is a very great difference between the period of time when our great banks were willing to trust to the character and business energy of those who were willing to deal with them, and the practice of our banks to-day, which are not willing, unless they are secured very much more than formerly, to lend their money. Does this mean that a man who is in possession of a Bank of Ireland note is not able to obtain payment of it on demand at a branch office?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, exactly the same position as in England.

Mr. HOGGE: Why should not an Irishman or Scotsman who is in possession of an Irish note be able, if he so desires, to get payment in full at any branch where he happens to be? Those who take any interest in the affairs of Ireland know that the bulk of the money is banked in Ulster banks. I am not sure that this is not a political move. It is
true that the large banks are in Ulster. The Attorney-General for Ireland shakes his head, and I hope he may be able to persuade us that that is not so. I have been told that the Irish farming classes have their money invested in Ulster banks.

Mr. LYNN: A safe place.

Mr. HOGGE: We are going to separate Ulster from the rest of Ireland, and this may have extraordinary effects. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but he laughs best who laughs last. They agree that the big banks are in Ulster. You are to have a separate Parliament for Ulster, and you might be giving to one part of Ireland financial power over the other part which would be detrimental to that other part. Speaking with, I admit, partial knowledge, but a desire to try and understand the matter, I venture to think that a Bill of this kind dealing with the internal financial arrangements in Ireland is a bit premature and ought to be postponed until the Government Bill as to Ireland is on the Statute Book. We are assured that by that Bill the Government are going to entrust the people of Ireland with very large powers, and why should they not entrust them with the power to make their own financial arrangements and their own banking arrangements?

Mr. RAFFAN: There may be a case for this Bill, and I have no doubt it would not be introduced otherwise, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case for it, and it is necessary to do even more than that, and to make out a case for the urgency of it, and that he has not attempted to do. Here is a system which has been in existence since 1828, and apparently it has worked for nearly a century to the mutual convenience of the Irish banks and people. Certainly in the ten years I have been here, I have never heard any Irish Member from North or South make any complaint as to any inconvenience caused by the present arrangement, nor, so far as I know, has any attempt been made to secure its alteration. We are entitled to ask why is it proposed now on the eve of the passing of a measure of self-government for Ireland, and why is it desired to make this great and drastic change. The whole case for Home Rule is that it is desirable in matters which affect the Irish people that they
should have the right to deal with them themselves, because they have greater knowledge as to those matters which only affect them. If ever there was a measure which comes within that definition it is this. Whether it passes or not, no Englishman, Welshman, or Scotsman will be affected, but it will be bound to affect, for good or ill, the people of Ireland, North or South. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us why this matter is so extremely urgent, and why it must be lifted out of the purview of an Irish Parliament after the lapse of a century.
10.0 P.M.
It is, of course, regrettable that the House has not the assistance of a larger body of Irish Members to guide them with regard to this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated the view of the Irish banks only, and has not professed to put the point of view of the public. I will not dogmatise about it, but I should imagine that it must be to the convenience of the Irish people that they are able under the present arrangement to go to a branch bank and deal with these notes there, and that it must be an inconvenience to them if this Bill is passed. If that be so, I suggest that the governing consideration ought not to be the mere wish of those who conduct banking institutions to secure a new privilege, but that the public point of view should be specially kept in mind. If I am mistaken with regard to the public point of view, I think it would be useful if the extremely able and representative Members for Ireland who are here were to enlighten us with regard to the point of view of the customers of these banks. Finally, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make out a case of real urgency which will justify the House in dealing with the matter at this particular time.

Mr. BALDWIN: With the leave of the House, I would like briefly to answer the points put by my hon. Friend, and to apologise very much to them if I have been unsuccessful in explaining the purpose of this Bill. In regard to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Raffan), I have always looked upon him as a pillar of hard-shell Radicalism, but the only argument he has used is, that here is an Act which has been in
force for a hundred years; why change it? The passage of this Bill into law will make no difference to any individual at all. There will be no more difficulty in getting currency than there has been in the past, any more than the hon. Member finds a difficulty in getting currency notes given him for a Bank of England five pound note at some place other than in London. I apologise to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), for smiling at the dreadful vision which he conjured up of all the money in Ireland being locked up in Belfast, and no one being able to get any of it, but it may comfort him to know that of the six banks affected, three have their head offices in Belfast, and three in Dublin, and that a great deal more money will be locked up in Dublin than in Belfast, so that if it comes to refusing to pay their political opponents, those who were for so long allied with the hon. Member in this House, will certainly not come off second best.
I think that that covers all the points but one, and that is the point that was raised by both my hon. Friends: why are we bringing in this Bill now; why not wait until the Home Rule Bill has become an Act? My hon. Friend was good enough to refer to my personal sense of responsibility, and it is exactly that personal sense of responsibility which compels me to bring it in now instead of waiting. If I could I should have liked to have brought it in some time ago, but was unable to do so owing to the congestion of business. My hon. Friend asked what had altered the circumstances and why this Act of a hundred years old should not be allowed to run. The whole currency of the United Kingdom is in a very unsteady condition. It is not a matter of concern to Irishmen alone. It concerns all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom who use this common currency, and it is our duty in every way we can not to have any more currency out than is absolutely necessary. We believe that this Bill will help to some extent—to what extent it is impossible to say exactly—to lessen the need for currency, and on that ground, and on that ground alone, I commend it to this House.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir J. CRAIG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the supply of Gas, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for two years after the passing of such Act, by way of advance to the extent that may be necessary, of the expenditure of the Board of Trade in the execution of their powers and duties under such Act, such instalments in each case to be repaid in the next three succeeding years."—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The Committee will remember that the Gas Regulation Bill was received in this House with a very gratifying approval, carried without a Division, and with an enthusiasm unparalleled by any other measure of this Session. This resolution is necessary in order to finance the Bill. I did explain, I think on the Second Reading of the Bill, what the money was required for. Under the Bill the Board of Trade has to appoint a chief gas examiner and three gas referees for the whole of the country. At present there is a gas examiner and there are referees, but only for the Metropolitan area. What is proposed in the Bill is that the same principle should be extended to cover the whole of the country. At the present time the London examiner and referees are paid for by funds raised by the Metropolitan gas companies, and, under this Bill, it is proposed that the expenses and salaries of the examiner and referees shall be raised by a levy on all the larger gas undertakings. That levy is not to exceed £15 for every 100,000,000 cubic feet of gas made. If you take the price of gas at an average of 5s. that means an expenditure of 10d. for every £100 worth of gas. The total amount, as is explained in the White Paper issued to the House, leviable under this Clause based on the amount of gas produced in 1919, is estimated at
about £32,000. It will not be possible to raise this levy from the gas undertakers in time probably to pay the expenses completely for the first two years of the Bill coming into operation. All that is asked by this Resolution is that the Treasury shall advance for two years such sums as are required to pay these expenses, and that that amount shall be repaid with interest at the end of that time. This it not, therefore, a permanent payment on the part of the Exchequer; it is merely an advance for a period not exceeding two years, and the total annual expenditure it is anticipated, will not exceed £20,000. I hope, as it is most important that the Bill, having now been referred to Committee, shall be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment, that the Committee now will allow this Resolution to be approved.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The White Paper which I hold in my hand and the speech to which the Committee has just listened appear to indicate that there is a reasonable possibility of an altogether remarkable state of affairs, namely, that this, at any rate, is a measure which if it works out anywhere within the ambit of reasonable probability will involve no extra charge upon the Exchequer. The means by which that happy and auspicious result is to be obtained is by a levy upon the gas undertakings. The smaller gas companies, as I understand it, will be exempt from this levy, which has only to fall upon the larger, richer, and more powerful undertakings. If that is so it is a very fortunate state of affairs, and I most heartily congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what is most distinctly an achievement, not only succeeded in getting a remarkable volume of acquiescence and hearty approval of the Second Reading, but, at the same time, he has achieved that purpose without any extra charge upon the Exchequer.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioners to be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend The Corn Production
Act, 1917, and the enactments relating to agricultural holdings, and of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by any other Department in meeting payments in respect of wheat or oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one or any subsequent year under Part I. of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the Present Session, and any expenses incurred by such Minister or Department or any other body under any other provision of the said Act as so amended and continued.
Provided that—

(a) for the purpose of the payments aforesaid the minimum prices of any year shall not exceed such sums as bear the same proportion in the case of wheat to sixty-eight shillings per customary quarter, and in the case of oats to forty-six shillings per customary quarter, as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year bears to the cost of the production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen and
(b) without prejudice to the rights of any person in respect of anything done or suffered before the commencement of such Act of the present Session, compensation under Section Nine of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the present Session, shall be payable only in respect of loss suffered by reason of the taking possession of land under that Section."

Orders of the Day — FERTILISERS (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF EXPORT) BILL [LORDS].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill which has come down to this House from another place. The object of it is perfectly simple, and anybody who reads this Measure can see precisely what is intended. The object of it is for a period of two years to control the export of fertilisers under the present Order which will be continued. The principal aim of the Bill is that the farmers of this country will be secured in a sufficient supply of the principal fertilisers with-
out which the position of agriculture in the country will be positively disastrous. The Bill applies to the principal fertilisers, and only the principal fertilisers—sulphate of ammonia, super-phosphate of lime, basic slag and potash. The export of these has been prohibited for the last three years. The prohibition and the control will go on to the date of the termination of the War. It is most important, however, that we should have power to continue the power for a further period. How important it is I can show by means of a few simple figures. Take sulphate of ammonia, which is probably the fertiliser most affected in the matter of control, and most important from the point of view of returning nitrate to the soil. The present agreed price as between the Ministry and the trade is £23 10s. per ton. The export price to-day is about £50 per ton, because of the shortage of this and other fertilisers on the Continent and elsewhere. Unless we have the power to control the export, there will undoubtedly be a very large export for the sake of the profit to be obtained, and we here should go short of the fertiliser. The same thing applies in the case of super-phosphate of lime, basic slag and potash. There is a shortness in this country of basic slag which is most important for improving grass lands. We are trying to increase the supply of basic slag, but our efforts will be entirely frustrated if free exportation is permitted. This is purely a temporary Measure.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some particulars with regard to super-phosphate of lime, basic slag and the other fertilisers—figures showing the old prices, and the estimated export prices if left free for export?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can only say that in each of these cases the export price would be very considerably higher than that paid at home. Under these circumstances we regard it as important to continue to control the export. We do not need to prohibit it for a single moment. What we propose to do is to secure that the farmers at home have a sufficient supply, month by month, and any surplus will be exported under licence. I may mention one particular point with regard to superphosphate of lime. The raw material, the phosphate rock, is obtained from Algeria and other colonial possessions of France, and the French Government have allocated a cer-
tain amount to this country. They retain, of course, a certain amount for themselves, and they allot a certain amount, in addition, to other allied countries. There is an understanding that this phosphate rock which they send here shall be for the use of our farmers at home, and, that being the case, we might get into great difficulties with the French Government if, after having turned the phosphate rock into superphosphate, we allowed it to be exported. In any case, the amount of phosphate rock allotted to us will only be just about sufficient to make enough superphosphate for our own requirements, and it would be a misfortune if its export were permitted, at all events uncontrolled, as would be the case unless this Bill goes through. I hope, therefore, that, having regard to the fact that, firstly, it is a temporary measure, secondly, that it is only to continue for a further period of two years what is the practice at the present time, and, thirdly, that, in order to maintain the fertility of our land, we must have these fertilisers, the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have no objection to the principle of this measure, provided that the circumstances on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his case are sufficiently urgent to justify it. The whole community has become by this time very suspicious of, and restless under, the continuance of the system of licences. We all know that it is of the utmost importance that our exports to America should be as full and as free as possible. No matter how minor the quantity may seem to be, it undoubtedly operates in readjusting the exchange in our favour. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions in further elucidation of this proposal, since it continues the system which he and everyone else, I assume, desires to get rid of as soon as possible, namely, the licensing system. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether this proposal is founded upon the report of any Committee, Departmental or otherwise, which has considered this question, and, if so, who are its members and what report they made? I should also like to hear something of the scope of the proposal. In the second place, while, as my right hon. Friend properly says, this is a temporary measure, does he not think that two years, until the 31st December,
1922, is too long a period? I should have thought it would have been quite sufficient to ask for another year. Happily, in many respects, the conditions are changing not unfavourably. I am very jealous, as I am sure the House is also, of giving more time for the operation of these very objectionable licences than is demonstrated to be absolutely necessary. As far as I can gather from what my right hon. Friend said, he made out no case for an extension for two years. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared, on what he has said, to agree that a case has been made out, perhaps, for one year, since I appreciate the importance of what he said as to the condition of agriculture, and the necessity for full and adequate supplies of the fertilisers necessary to keep the land in such condition that we get the highest possible production from it. I suggest that, when my right hon. Friend comes to reply, he should tell us, first of all, is this simply the result of a discussion with his chiefs, or has he consulted the experts of the trades concerned, or has he had a Departmental Committee to inquire into it; and secondly, agreeing, as he does, with what I have already said as to the objectionable character of licence system, will he, when it comes to the Committee stage, favourably consider the proposal to limit it to one year instead of two?

Mr. HAILWOOD: I have no desire to handicap the farmers in any way. They are to be encouraged in every shape and form. But at the same time, while doing everything we can for the farmers, we have to see that we are not discouraging the manufacturers. There are in Lancashire several manufacturers of super-phosphate who have a very big export trade, and I rather think some of the regulations now in force materially affect them and cause discontent. It is very difficult for any Government Department to estimate what is the correct quantity of any material that is required. I have an idea that price generally is the best determining factor of how much is required for home consumption. This afternoon we have had a Bill before us for taking over phosphates in an island in the Pacific, and we were led to believe that there was a tremendous quantity of superphosphates in that area and that our farmers would be amply supplied. It seems to me to be unnecessary that we should put further restrictions on the
exportation of superphosphate from this country. One would think if there are ample supplies the market price ought to regulate itself and the farmers here ought to determine how much superphosphate they are prepared to buy, and it would be a big help to this country if our chemical manufacturers in Lancashire can be helped and encouraged to export more. It would be a good thing for levelling up the rate of exchange, and I fail to see how the farmers are in any way handicapped by exporting superphosphate, because it is inconceivable that farmers in foreign countries can import superphosphate from us and pay the freight on it and then send wheat back to this country and undersell the farmer here. One would think we have superphosphate on the spot in this country, and we ought to be able to pay the market price and then undersell the foreign wheat grower. These points, I think, ought to be elucidated by the Ministry, and I think the time ought to be as short as possible for the operation of these restrictions.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I think we shall all agree that the licensing position ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible; but, on the other hand, I am afraid certain industries themselves, owing to the world shortage, recognise that some restrictions must continue. When a trade which can make a much bigger profit through export is agreed amongst itself that restrictions are still necessary, the House may feel satisfied, if that is the case, as I understand it to be pretty generally with regard to superphosphate, sulphate of ammonia, and the other chemicals provided for in the Bill, that there is, at any rate, a primâ facie case made out by the Government. I understand from those interested in the manufacture of these chemicals in the North that, although they could get a much bigger price if they exported freely, they realise that the needs of the home consumer are greater than those of the foreigner, and they are prepared to make this sacrifice in order to meet the abnormal conditions at home. I believe a working arrangement has been come to amongst the majority of the manufacturers of these by-products, and that they are in general agreement with the Bill as it is framed. We all object
to licensing, but at the same time the abnormal conditions which have prevailed convince most business men that it is in the interests of the country as a whole, and it is not unduly handicapping trade in particular, that this measure should be passed. Therefore, I hope the House will give a Second Reading, and if there are any adjustments to be made in Committee, the Government, I am sure, will favourably consider them. I am advised that the trade as a whole are absolutely in sympathy with the measure, although it is one which is going forcibly to curtail the profits that they might otherwise make.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not often that I differ from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but in my constituency, which exports these artificial manures—I do not know why hon. Members laugh when I am trying to say a word on an important matter affecting my constituency—I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that they are getting near the breaking point with regard to these restrictions on trade. These export licences and the like are applied in the most clumsy and irritating manner, and really we have had quite enough of this sort of thing. The Bill is unnecessary for at least another twelve months. The Defence of the Realm Act, which gives full power to prevent the export of anything from this country, will remain in force until peace is ratified and ratification is deposited, and nobody knows when that will be. At any rate, it will not be for a good many months. That being the case, I see no reason for this Bill. It should be left over for another six months, and, if necessary, brought in then. We are going to have an Autumn Session, when the situation will be more apparent, and the Government should wait till then.
I have another serious objection to the Bill. The policy of the Government is only consistent in one thing, namely, in providing artificial protection for the farmer at any cost. That means that the non-agricultural population have to pay through the nose. This is one more example of that policy. Surely, we realise that it is extremely unlikely that we shall ever be able to subsist on that which we grow ourselves. We must rely on cheap food from abroad. This attempt entirely to grow our own food has been shown in the past, when we had a much
smaller population, to be a total failure. Before we can get the prices of food down we have to be able to import food from abroad. If the Government think that they can make this country subsist entirely on home-grown food, they are living in a fool's paradise. That being the case, if phosphates are wanted abroad and they can be manufactured here and exported, it will pay us much better to allow free trade in chemical fertilisers of this sort. If the British farmers want to buy local produce, they have the option of paying for it, less insurance and freight, and that alone, I should think, is all that they need. The Continent of Europe is crying out for fertilisers and chemical and artificial manures. Apart from the question of humanity in getting these people on their feet cultivating their own countries again, it is to our direct advantage that they should once more produce food and sell it to us. A great quantity of our sugar, wheat and meat, in fact everything, as hon. Members know, came from Europe, and they have to come from Europe again.
What is happening to-day? We are getting our food mainly from two sources: from the British farmer, who is paid handsomely for it, and from North and South America and, to a certain extent, from the Colonies. The price of that food is represented in every housewife's budget to-day, and one of the main causes of discontent in the country is this continual rise in the price of food. This is one more step taken by the Government artificially to raise the price of food. There seems to be a sort of idea that it would pay us to weaken the agricultural production of Europe, apparently in the interests once more of the British farmers, who have not done badly—I have no special grudge against them—in the last few years. This Bill is unnecessary. The powers exist already. It is extremely questionable whether it ought to be passed without further discussion. I am not satisfied, and I will vote against it, and I trust other hon. Members will support me.

Mr. T. DAVIES: (Cirencester)
We have had several deputations from farmers' associations before the Agricultural Committee of Members upstairs, and one of the most important points they have put before us was that they must have a sufficient supply
of artificial manures to carry them through. I am glad to say that I can back up what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) has said, that the manufacturers of these artificial manures have met the agriculturists in a very fair-minded way. They recognise that the industry requires a good deal more artificial manures than can be produced here, and they are doing their level best to meet the situation. A statement was made to us upstairs that they are willing to agree to restrictions, because they see that the agricultural community require these artificial substitutes. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) thought that if this was done for one year that would practically be sufficient. Anyone who looks forward to the wheat supply for the next three years is perfectly certain that we shall not get enough during the next three years. We know very well that there is a world shortage, and nobody can expect to get any substantial wheat supply from any European country for the next two years.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should not like it to be thought that I was guilty of suggesting that I have sufficient knowledge on this question to be able to dogmatically state that twelve months is long enough. I only say that it is a long enough period for this Bill, and then we can see where we are, and there is not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend could then come to the House again and seek renewed powers to meet the circumstances then prevailing.

Mr. DAVIES: If you want to produce wheat in this country you must give the farmers confidence in regard to two things: in the first place, that he will be able to produce by getting all the artificial manures he requires; and secondly, that he will be able to get a remunerative price when he has produced it. These two things stand together. If the country expects the agricultural community to produce wheat in much larger quantities next year and the following year, we must remember this, that the farmers will not put their land under corn, but will put it under grass, unless they get a guarantee that the artificials which they want will be supplied, and at such a price that they can afford to get them. There is no other way in which you can get an increased food supply. I do not
care whether it is the farmer, the labourer, or any other worker. None will work unless they have a proper prospect of results for their labour. The labourers and the tradesmen want proper wages. The farmer will not grow wheat unless he is certain that he will get a profit from the wheat. The only way to get him to do that is to make it absolutely certain that the things which he requires to enable him to produce are there, and that he will be able to get them, and also get a fair price for his produce. At the present time the Government is paying from 25s. to 30s. a quarter to the foreigner over and above what they allow the home farmer to get. That is acting as a great deterrent to the farmers. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged that there is great danger of a famine next year. And to encourage our farmers to put more land under wheat they have agreed to remove the restrictions on price next year and let English farmers enjoy the world market price. But I want people to disabuse their minds of the idea that we want to go in for an old-fashioned system of protection. If I thought that for a single moment, I would not support this. I do not believe in protection or in these licences, but exceptional circumstances demand exceptional measures, and the policy which the Government outline has the approval of the manufacturers of artificials and of those engaged in agriculture, and the proof is that we have had deputation after deputation upstairs begging us to do the very thing which the Government want to do. I hope that the House will support the Bill.

Colonel GRETTON: There is a definite and urgent need of a large supply of fertilisers. A great deal of the land has been impoverished during the last few years. No arable land can be maintained in this country unless it is refreshed and assisted from time to time by a wise and plentiful use of artificial manure. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) who apparently desires these fertilisers to be sent abroad, so that we may go abroad and buy the foodstuffs which we require. It is better to keep the fertilisers in this country and produce the utmost amount of food of which we are capable. It is no argu-
ment to say that we produce too little. We want to produce fertilisers so as to produce more food. The whole principle of this measure is highly objectionable, but there is no other way, and as the English agriculturist and consumer should not be deprived of the utmost amount that can be grown in this country, I sup port the Bill in spite of the objection to the principle. From the point of view of those who oppose the Bill and who may say that they want to find employment for the people of this country, I would suggest that if we produce by means of fertilisers more food from the land which is capable of producing it we should find employment for the people on the land. I would suggest that the Government when they reach the Committee stage should consider the advisability of being more definite as to what they are going to do under these Orders, and as to the fertilisers which they mean to restrict and that they should give some definition of fertilisers. The Bill is too vague in its details. I would suggest that in taking those very wide powers to act by Order in Council they should, in the interests of everyone concerned, be more precise as to what they intend to do.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would appeal to the House to give the Second Reading now. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in objecting entirely to control and licences, and I regret to have to come to the House and ask for this Bill, but it is absolutely necessary. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) speaks of the necessity of cheap food. The only way to get cheap food is to make the best use of the land you have here. If you are going to starve it of fertilisers, and allow those fertilisers to go abroad, it would be a most short-sighted policy. This is practically an agreed Bill. The trade particularly interested is the trade in sulphate of ammonia. We do not want to hurt the trade. Firms representing 86 per cent. of the output have agreed to this Bill. They have willingly said that they will take £23 10s. a ton for sulphate of ammonia and postpone the opportunity of exporting, at something like £50 a ton, if the Government will deal with all alike, and will divide the profits on the exports equitably among the traders concerned. That is the proposal, and that is what we are going to do. Because
14 per cent. stand out to get a larger profit, that is no reason why the House should support them. We ought to support those who are willing to take a smaller profit. I am asked, Has a Committee reported in favour of this? Strictly speaking, a Committee has not, but a Department of the Ministry, all through the War, has been dealing with this question of fertilisers. We ploughed a great deal of extra land, and the nitrogenous fertilisers were cut off. nitrates, for example. The principal nitrogenous fertilisers were cut off. We developed a sulphate of ammonia trade under a special department of the Board, and we have, by a system of equalisation, supplied sulphate of ammonia in place of nitrates to farmers all through the country by agreement with the trade. The whole of that arrangement could be upset at once if export was largely allowed, as it would be if this Bill did not pass. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) asked me whether two years was not too long a period. We have only powers for two years, but if circumstances changed, we certainly should not want to exercise those powers. We should be quite content to terminate the use of the powers in one year, or even in a shorter period, if we could do so and at the same time not starve our farmers of these fertilisers. In any case, I put it to my right hon. Friend and to the House that that is a point which can be settled in Committee. I am quite prepared to consider any reasonable suggestion. I cannot say more than that. The cry often heard, and heard most from the Opposition side of the House, is that we must not protect agriculture, but must introduce science and the best method possible for making full use of the soil. We cannot do that without fertilisers. In the circumstances, and to meet a sudden emergency which I hope will shortly come to an end, I appeal to the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Captain W. BENN: There is no point in the claim as to urgency. The Government is fully armed with the necessary powers, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to carry out whatever policy it seems right to them to carry out. No one will make it a charge against me of unduly delaying proceedings if I insist on the
right to examine this proposal, which has been before us exactly half an hour, and is low down on the Order Paper. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that this Bill is a proposal for giving further assistance to farmers. The farmers are going to get the world price for their wheat. We are giving more financial assistance to the farming industry. There is, no doubt, excellent reason in the minds of those who favour this proposal for doing so, but the urban districts are being taxed to do this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Of course, they are. We have here the contest between town and country which is characterising the policies of Central Europe. You are prohibiting exports and you are thereby diminishing exports and are affecting our foreign exchanges. Do you suppose that the right hon. Gentleman can put his finger into the business of exports and imports without the people suffering. You cannot do these things without creating all sorts of reverberations. What about the production of fertilisers? The production will be diminished, because the people are not going to continue making them if they know that the markets can be stopped by the right hon. Gentleman. Do not these considerations bring home to the House that it is not obstruction to desire that there should be Debate on a Bill like this, brought before the House without notice? It is a very important subject, and well worthy of the attention of the House. I fully realise the importance of having a free supply of fertilisers. We had a most amazing Debate on this subject this afternoon on a proposal that we should throw overboard our pledges, in order that we should seize on one source of fertilisers for the use of ourselves and our friends. The right hon. Gentleman told us, also, that they had an arrangement with the French Government as to the supply of fertilisers, and that this Bill is a counterpart of the bargain. We ought to know what this understanding is, and, as this is not the place to find out, what is the place? Quite apart from this matter, there is a great deal too much done nowadays by Orders and Departments and far too little by Debate and the judgment of this House. What is the bargain that has been struck with the French Government in return for introducing this Bill? The Defence of the Realm Act gives all
the powers which are necessary at present. We do not know when the end of the War may be declared. It may not be for at least a year. Until that time the right hon. Gentleman can make whatever arrangements he pleases. [HON MEMBERS: "Divide!"] It is quite useless to attempt to interfere with the course of my arguments. I have asked the Board of Trade under what powers they are prohibiting exports and I find that they have power independent of this House or of this Bill. They can prevent export of fertilisers or anything else by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and they are doing so. They have exercised that power in times of war and in times of peace—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — IRELAND.

TROOPS (TRANSPORT).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Mr. MOLES: At Question Time to-day, I addressed a question respecting the treatment meted out to certain soldiers travelling from Waterford to Kilkenny. The Secretary of State for War stated that he had not then the information, that he had made inquiries, and that he would come down and tell the House what information there was available. He is not in his place, and I have had no information from him, directly or indirectly, and I am desirous of knowing whether that is a courteous and proper way of treating this House in an important matter of this kind. I am not clear what procedure is open, but I venture to call the attention of the House to the matter. Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'clock.